Greetings 🤗 🤠

Quack—a problem or a symptom of a deficiency that we still haven’t been able to solve?

Who is Quack?

A quack doctor is an untrained person who pretends to have medical skills, knowledge, or qualifications they do not possess. They are charlatans who often promote "miracle cures" to exploit vulnerable patients for money.

This Proper Definition of Word Quack been taken from Gemini.

We have weaponized a word—“Quack”—and have come to believe that the solution to every problem is to eliminate it. But no one asks the question, why were these people born? For decades after the creation of Pakistan, there were no hospitals, no doctors, no basic health facilities in countless areas of the country. Even today, there are many villages where there is no permanent availability of a qualified doctor. In such a situation, when a child was suffering from fever, when there was a risk of life during childbirth, when urgent help was needed—these local doctors would come forward.

Image Generated With Using Google Gemini

It must be admitted that they were not doctors,

But it must also be admitted that where there were no doctors, they were the only recourse. They served for years—often for little pay, among their own people. Even today, the real issue for a common man is not “degree” but “affordability.”

A BDS doctor charges Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 40,000 for a dental crown, while an Attai can do the same kind of work for Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 8,000. Where should a laborer whose daily income is Rs. 1,000–1,500 go? This debate is not just about quality, but about the reality of access and constraint.

Now, let’s look at it in the light of the law. The Constitution of Pakistan grants every citizen the right to life (Article 9), which has been interpreted by the courts to include access to health. Article 18 of the same constitution grants every citizen the freedom to choose employment, while Article 38 obliges the state to provide welfare and basic amenities to the people. Now the question is straightforward: if the state is not able to provide health facilities everywhere, and those who were filling this gap are also being eliminated, then is this not a conflict with these basic principles?

Moreover, a fundamental principle in law is that of “proportionality”—that is, the action should be proportionate to the crime. Is it really proportionate to suddenly convict a person who has been providing basic medical care for 20–30 years and subject him to prison, fines, and complete closure? Similarly, another principle is that of “legitimate expectation”—when the state tolerates an action for years, people stake their lives on it. Then suddenly harsh action calls into question the basic requirements of justice.

The real truth is that the problem is not the extremes, the problem is the lack and inaccessibility where the system could not fully reach. When the system does not reach, society itself finds a way, and these people were that way. Now the question is, will we accept this fact and improve it, or will we close everything down and create a new crisis?

The solution is there and it is simple: organize these people instead of eliminating them. Provide basic training, set clear boundaries, and put them under the supervision of qualified doctors. A balanced system can be created by pairing a few practitioners with one doctor, limiting them to primary care, and requiring them to refer complex cases.

Finally, a question that no one can avoid: If all the violence were to stop tomorrow, would there be a doctor in every village? Would treatment be cheaper and faster? If the answer is “no,” then closure alone is not the solution—it is the beginning of a new problem.

The point is simple:

Don’t eliminate those who helped when there was none—improve them and make them part of the system. This is justice, this is what the law requires, and this is the sustainable solution.