The General Medical Council (GMC) has published a vision for the future of medical education and training, which calls for a major transformation of the current system. The document outlines three key areas of change: building a larger workforce with multidisciplinary educators, changing prequalification education, and supporting career development and lifelong learning. While these changes may seem reasonable, they raise concerns about the role of non-doctors in training doctors, the length of medical school curricula, and the approach to postgraduate training. The GMC argues that the current system is not fit for purpose, and that medical education needs to be transformed to meet the demands of a changing patient population. However, critics argue that the proposals lack evidence-based reasoning and a thorough examination of the current system. The GMC also claims urgency, suggesting that the changes are already being implemented in the background, with a brief period of listening followed by the formation of a stakeholder group and enabling legislation. The article criticizes the GMC's approach as being reactive and tone-deaf to concerns about patient safety and the scope of practice of physician associates. It argues that the proposed changes would result in less education, training, and experience for future doctors, which could lead to poorer and less safe care for patients. The article also questions the GMC's decision to devolve the responsibility for training doctors to other staff and employers, which strikes at the heart of what it means to be a profession. The GMC's vision for medical education and training risks undermining the credibility of the medical profession and its institutions. The article calls for a pushback against these changes before it is too late.The General Medical Council (GMC) has published a vision for the future of medical education and training, which calls for a major transformation of the current system. The document outlines three key areas of change: building a larger workforce with multidisciplinary educators, changing prequalification education, and supporting career development and lifelong learning. While these changes may seem reasonable, they raise concerns about the role of non-doctors in training doctors, the length of medical school curricula, and the approach to postgraduate training. The GMC argues that the current system is not fit for purpose, and that medical education needs to be transformed to meet the demands of a changing patient population. However, critics argue that the proposals lack evidence-based reasoning and a thorough examination of the current system. The GMC also claims urgency, suggesting that the changes are already being implemented in the background, with a brief period of listening followed by the formation of a stakeholder group and enabling legislation. The article criticizes the GMC's approach as being reactive and tone-deaf to concerns about patient safety and the scope of practice of physician associates. It argues that the proposed changes would result in less education, training, and experience for future doctors, which could lead to poorer and less safe care for patients. The article also questions the GMC's decision to devolve the responsibility for training doctors to other staff and employers, which strikes at the heart of what it means to be a profession. The GMC's vision for medical education and training risks undermining the credibility of the medical profession and its institutions. The article calls for a pushback against these changes before it is too late.