The New Zealand government’s decision to establish a third medical school has been met with criticism and controversy. The move has been seen as a politically motivated one, with many questioning the need for an additional medical school in the country. The decision has been attributed to the influence of political cosyism, where personal relationships and interests have taken precedence over the needs of the healthcare system. The lack of transparency in the decision-making process has also been a major point of contention, with many calling for greater accountability and scrutiny. The government has defended its decision, citing the need to increase the number of medical graduates and address the shortage of doctors in certain regions. However, critics argue that the establishment of a third medical school will not necessarily address these issues and may even exacerbate existing problems. The controversy has sparked a wider debate about the role of politics in healthcare decision-making and the need for greater transparency and accountability. Many have expressed concerns that the decision will lead to a duplication of resources and a lack of coordination between the different medical schools. Others have argued that the focus should be on addressing the underlying issues in the healthcare system, such as inadequate funding and poor working conditions, rather than establishing a new medical school. The government has been accused of prioritizing the interests of certain individuals and groups over the needs of the wider healthcare system. The controversy has also highlighted the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to healthcare planning and decision-making. The establishment of a third medical school has been seen as a symptom of a larger problem, where political considerations and personal interests are allowed to influence decision-making. The lack of a clear and transparent decision-making process has meant that the needs and concerns of different stakeholders, including healthcare professionals and patients, have not been adequately taken into account. The controversy has sparked calls for greater reform and accountability in the healthcare system, with many arguing that the current system is not fit for purpose. The government has been urged to take a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to healthcare decision-making, one that prioritizes the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system. The establishment of a third medical school has been seen as a missed opportunity to address the underlying issues in the healthcare system and to develop a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to healthcare planning. The controversy has highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in healthcare decision-making, as well as the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to addressing the complex challenges facing the healthcare system. The government has been accused of failing to provide adequate leadership and direction on healthcare issues, and of allowing political considerations to influence decision-making. The controversy has sparked a wider debate about the role of politics in healthcare decision-making and the need for greater transparency and accountability. The establishment of a third medical school has been seen as a symbol of the government’s lack of commitment to addressing the underlying issues in the healthcare system. The controversy has highlighted the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to healthcare planning and decision-making, one that prioritizes the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system. The government has been urged to take a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to healthcare decision-making, one that is guided by the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system, rather than political considerations and personal interests.