A Plus for IMGs
I read with interest your article “Cultural Differences Can Impede Relationship Between IMGs, Patients” in the December 15, 2000, issue.
Despite being an international medical graduate (IMG) myself, I have experienced my IMG status in the U.S. as rather the opposite of what Dr.
Second, it is generally acknowledged that minorities have a harder time relating to the majority, but usually have a better rapport with any other minority. Not surprisingly, being an IMG, and therefore belonging to a minority, I often find myself having fewer, not more, difficulties with patients, which raises a number of barriers when examined by my American colleagues.
I agree about the importance of understanding the specific cultural context, and I think that cannot be overemphasized in a country so ethnically diverse as the United States. I also agree that building cross-cultural competency remains a critical issue during psychiatry training, and I am glad to see that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education addresses it in its guidelines.
Allow me to think that such a critical issue has equal relevance for both international and American medical graduates. I see the singling out of IMGs as having no benefit but carrying a few serious risks. First is the implication that an American graduate is culturally competent and sensitive. On the basis of such an assumption, one can argue against a need for further training for American graduates as unnecessary or redundant. Is this warranted? Second, pointing to IMGs can only add to a common (mis)perception of IMGs as being less competent doctors. Speaking to this, I was frankly offended by the article’s headline, which almost stated that being an IMG is an impediment in developing a good doctor-patient relationship—and this article discussed issues of cultural sensitivity. Where is the “cultural sensitivity” toward IMGs as a group and a minority?