Doctors Urge NCAHP to Amend Curriculum Containing ‘Derogatory’ Terms for Persons with Disabilities

The recently proposed National Physiotherapy Curriculum for the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT), which will begin in the academic year 2026–2027, has drawn grave criticism from a coalition of healthcare professionals with disabilities.

In a formal submission to the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP), Dr. Satendra Singh — founder of Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change — pointed out that the curriculum enforces exclusionary policies that may prevent students with specific disabilities from pursuing physiotherapy education. Ironically, these same individuals are eligible to enroll in more demanding medical programs like MBBS and MD.

Key Concerns Highlighted

The collective notes that the new curriculum imposes rigid criteria that exclude candidates with more than 50% lower limb disabilities, non-dominant upper limb involvement, spinal impairments, or conditions like dyslexia, blood disorders, and chronic neurological diseases — provided the disability crosses a 50% threshold.

Dr. Singh emphasized that such exclusions are inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed students with severe disabilities, including up to 88% muscular dystrophy or 40% speech impairment, to study medicine. “The curriculum, as it stands, contradicts both the spirit and letter of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPDA), 2016,” the letter stated.

Limited Roles and Outdated Language

Among the primary concerns raised is the curriculum's use of outdated and possibly derogatory words like "handicapped" and "mentally subnormal." Although it is not common, it seems that similar terminology is employed in several frequently used textbooks and curriculum materials, especially in older publications that are still in circulation.

This brings up an important point — medical education needs to adapt to changing language.

It is both legally and morally required that instructional materials in the curriculum adhere to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which places a strong emphasis on inclusive and respectful language.

Inadequate Consultation Period

Another major point of contention is the consultation process. Stakeholders were given only 15 days to review and respond to the draft — half the minimum 30-day period typically mandated for major policy reforms.

“This truncated window does not reflect genuine stakeholder engagement,” the group said, adding that any effort to reform health education must be inclusive, transparent, and legally compliant.

In a recent post, Rema Nagarajan, Sr. Journalist, Times Of India (TOI), tweeted :

A Path Forward

The WHO's International Classification of Functioning (ICF) framework, which incorporates both medical and social models of disability, is already being adopted by a large number of physical therapy universities and facilities.

The NCAHP has received an offer from the Doctors with Disabilities network to work together on updating and expanding the curriculum. Additionally, they have requested a 30-day public consultation window instead of the original 15-day timeframe, which is standard practice.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Vidya Chilvery/MSM)