PS. This piece might be read as a companion piece to the one published under the moniker – Mindful Critique 11, available at https://pallmedprep.com/2026/08/04/mindful-critique-mc11-perspectives-on-the-challenges-and-demands-of-interviews-in-a-fledgling-speciality-revisiting-situations-which-are-not-usually-spoken-of/.

I have been an academic reviewer for more than 10 years now. Of late, I remain disappointed by my decision not to add humour to my interactions with the system and my inherent tendency to go on a philosophical diatribe. With this in mind, I would like to consider reviewing my piece on Mindful critiques, published very recently, from the point of view of a harried, emotionally stunted insider.

The author seems to be suffering from a grandiose delusion that his work exists in a democracy founded on the ideals of equality, justice, and freedom. He believes that he is free to write whatever he has witnessed, for which he has no real proof. To this, we may advise that he revisit the actual documentation related to the interview and possibly check the quantum of his marks in the exam conducted prior to his assessment (available in the public domain). In one of the interviews, where he was the only candidate, his percentile score was hundred.

The author also seems to be suffering from a serious case of demoralisation, which he should attempt to cure by typing palliative medicine jobs in his nearest browser and looking at the myriad positions available. At last count, he was eligible for exactly 9 ¾ trainee positions after nearly ten years of training.

The author also seems to have forgotten that the usual practice is that a set of common clinical scenarios is provided to all candidates in the interview, and their written responses, which are available for scrutiny later, form the basis of all decisions. As per the data available, when the candidate’s responses were reviewed, he attempted to save or prolong the lives of all patients that he was provided. This runs against the very philosophical premise of palliation, where neither shall you prolong suffering, nor would you decrease it.

He also seems to be suffering from brief abstraction-related psychosis, where he seems to be imagining that the voice in his ears was modulated to various frequencies. The idea that he was made to hear only certain things at times seems less than probable. For writing this, he needs to be urgently referred to a psychiatrist, a counsellor, a medical social worker, and an expert in studying scatological patterns in that order.

If he considers all his research as his own, he needs to contemplate whether or not he was not surrounded by colleagues. The mere presence of a colleague might be a reason for him having these ideas (whose number was disproportionate to the intellectual capital rationed for those in his field of expertise). He seems to have overdrawn his available quota and shall be penalised handsomely.

If he feels that he is at liberty to talk about the absence of inpatient admissions during postgraduate training, he should remember that the organisation was following the philosophy of MD Anderson Cancer Centre, where there are no admissions under palliative care. The author needs to remember that his patient is exactly similar to a Westerner, in that both of them have two eyes, two ears, one nose, exactly one sternum and possibly one tail (howsoever vestigial).

If the author has made himself believe that his presentations at foreign conferences make him the best candidate for a position, he should realise that those conferences do not have a peer review panel. The abstracts chosen for presentation and publication are merely chosen on a first-come, first-served basis with a quota for those from developing third-world countries. To our knowledge, he seems to have met the eligibility requirements for the quota on many more occasions than once.

If the panel did not get back to him, or did not release results till they were specifically enquired about, it is only that they are not obliged to do so, unless the candidate uses specific provisions of the Right to Misinformation Act. Of this, he needs to be fully aware; this guidance has long been disseminated in misgazetted journals.

If his junior was propositioned by a member of the interview panel for employment, he should remember that such is the accepted practice. The panel members are free to indulge in telephonic conversations according to their network coverage, for special incentives might also be offered (incoming more than outgoing).

If he thinks that he might be in the right, while approaching other organisations for fellowship opportunities, he should understand that it is a matter of protocol that he be absorbed in the institute of his postgraduate training; if that does not work out, his organisation of graduation might be expected to take the lead. Protocol also dictates that in the event of a lack of these organisations willing to take responsibility, he might consider changing his profession, as such kind of a professional switch is most suited for nefarious, nebulous, rebellious personalities like his.

If he would like to pursue training in Internal Medicine, we suggest that he go through the NEET-PG route. In the event that NEET-PG is not an option, he might be tempted to consider USMLE, MRCGP, approach Fijian authorities, and the honorable College of Physicians in the Maldives with his request.

If he has a problem with personal email communication being used against him, he should stop using emails as a method of communication and use hand gestures or, better still, sign language version beta, which might provide him additional marks during future interviews.

If he has problems with the use of diplomatic verse, aphorisms and euphemisms, he needs to enrol himself in a dedicated course in diplomacy (unblended learning) being provided to fellow journeymen who are declared unsuccessful in interviews. Perhaps join a dedicated WhatsApp group or a meet-up or hold a seance at Junta-r Mann-tar, that epicentre of all misguided youth activities.

If he has not been getting recognition for admitting patients, he might be advised to join a corporate setting, where palliative care will not be covered under insurance. This way the system might be able to explain away the lack of admissions.

If he feels that he was ideologically absent, one would advise deducting his stipend, or perhaps not paying him at all for his workmanlike training. This might enable him to seek patients who are more in line with his ideological affiliation – and work that requires supervision and framing of ideal-based protocols only.

If he has a problem with high-flow oxygen-based questions, it might be advisable to ask him questions based upon the uses, cost, and side effects of using bloated air in this setting only.

He ought to make a mental note that mentioning noteworthy trials during the interview might lead to hefty deductions and even negative marking, or, better still, the promise of another interview whose outcome has been decided beforehand.

The comment about methadone seems particularly ill-judged and rather ill-fated; Wait, we can sense that there might be a proposal bludgeoned away somewhere to make such contraband available over the counter!!

The loopy thought process that the author describes is an important requirement of sterling UNfaculty-level work. The author is expected to revisit encyclodepia britain-ica, which clearly outlines that the level of loopiness is directly proportional to the number of years spent waiting for a position (research proven, high grade and robust strength of recommendation).

If he wants to be working in a foreign country, he should be reborn in one. Perhaps if he starts praying about re-birth from today onwards, he might be bestowed with the privilege to be re-born in Finland, Greenland, Pak-I-Stan or even hell.

A review of the final few passages of the piece illustrates an attempt to trivialise his own writing by offering physiologically implausible constructs; for this, he might be advised to seek a dual degree in physiology and hagiography. In fact, he might be offered a scholarship that might cover the cost of remedying his strong points and changing them to resemble the neutered impostor or the domesticated holy fool or better still, groomed into a feeble, barely breathing mechanised version of a well-grounded individual.

That’s all.

Disclaimer
Artificial intelligence tools, primarily Claude (Anthropic), have been employed for language refinement. They do not replace critical scholarship, clinical experience, or editorial judgment. Final responsibility for all interpretations, factual accuracy, originality of synthesis, and the quality of the published material rests entirely with the Founder and Editor.

#InLighterVein