A growing dispute has emerged between doctors and Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) after medical professionals in Rawalpindi firmly rejected the installation of Point of Sale (POS) systems in clinics and hospitals. Doctors argue that the move amounts to unnecessary surveillance and undermines their professional independence.
The decision to oppose the FBR directive was announced during a divisional convention of the Pakistan Medical Association (PMA), which saw strong participation from doctors representing both public and private healthcare sectors. Members of various medical organizations were also present, highlighting the widespread concern within the medical community.
During the convention, doctors expressed deep dissatisfaction with what they described as disrespectful and unfair treatment by the tax authorities. They emphasized that clinics are healthcare spaces, not commercial outlets, and placing POS systems there would violate their dignity and compromise the trust-based relationship between doctors and patients.
Medical professionals made it clear that they are not opposed to paying taxes or complying with the law. In fact, they stated their willingness to self-review their tax records and fulfill all legal obligations. However, they strongly rejected what they see as coercive measures and physical monitoring imposed by any government body.
PMA Punjab President Dr. Kamran Saeed briefed attendees on recent discussions with the FBR Chairman and the Federal Finance Minister. He shared that negotiations are ongoing, but stressed that no final agreement has yet been reached.
At the conclusion of the meeting, doctors announced the continuation of their protest. They warned that if their concerns are not addressed, they may resort to closing private medical institutions nationwide. According to the medical community, this issue is not just about taxation—it is about safeguarding professional autonomy, respect, and the dignity of the medical profession.
As talks continue, the standoff highlights a broader debate over how regulatory authorities engage with professionals and whether enforcement strategies can balance transparency with respect for professional independence.