Medical Physicist Licence Conditions in Radiotherapy in Qatar
October 11, 2026
13 min read
DITEC Experts, Radiation Protection Team, ALDuha Institute for Training and Environmental Consulting
The only entry in this batch with alternative routes
One point before anything else. Meeting the conditions in the Decision is what you can prepare for. Whether a licence is granted, and when, is a decision of the competent authority alone, and nothing in this explanation and nothing in any course is a commitment that a licence will be issued or that it will be issued within a given period. What this article does is set out the conditions as the instrument states them and point to the training that bears on them.
The medical physicist in the field of radiotherapy is licensed in medical item 4 of the schedule attached to Decision 4 of 2007, and the entry is built differently from the four that follow it in this batch. Those four set one list of conditions each. This one sets three alternative lists, and a candidate answers one of them rather than all three. It is also the only entry transcribed for this batch that contains an experience condition at all, and the figure it names on its first route is ten years.
The practice behind the entry is the one that decides how much radiation a patient receives and where it goes. The physicist plans the treatment, checks the machine's output against a reference, and verifies that what was planned is what is delivered. That work is why the entry sits in the medical part of a radiation decision at all, and it is also why the length of the experience figures repays attention: not less than ten years on the first route is the longest period in the entries transcribed for this batch.
One feature of the drafting is worth flagging before the text, because it is a difference from the industrial part. In industrial items 11 and 12, and in medical item 9, the doctorate route does not name the prescribed medical examination; the transcribed text of those items does not contain it, and that is how the original reads. In this entry the examination is named in all three routes. So those items read differently from this one, and the routes of this entry are read on their own words.
One point of orientation before the conditions. They are in the schedule attached to the Decision rather than in the body of it: the issuing article says that the conditions for licences to work in the fields of radiation work, attached to this Decision, shall apply. So a reader who opens the Decision and reads the article that issues it finds a referral and no conditions.
The opening formula, and the three routes
The entry opens with a formula that requires the conditions to be present in the person who is granted a licence to practise radiation work as a medical physicist in the field of radiotherapy. Three things follow from that wording. The conditions attach to a person and not to an employer, so a department does not hold this licence for its staff. They are required cumulatively within whichever route is relied on. And the licence is tied to a named function, and the function is itself qualified by a field, which is radiotherapy.
Then come three routes, separated by the word the text uses for the alternative, and that word appears twice: at the end of the first route and at the end of the second, attached to the medical examination line. Each route carries four conditions. The academic condition names the first university degree on the first route, the second on the second and the third on the third, each of them in the field of the speciality. The training condition is word for word the same in all three. The experience condition names not less than ten years on the first route, not less than five on the second and not less than three on the third, each of them in the field of the work. And the prescribed medical examination closes each of the three.
Read what the three routes do and do not do. They differ in exactly two things, the level of the degree and the length of the experience, and they move in opposite directions: the higher the degree the shorter the experience floor. They do not differ in the course, which is identical in all three, and they do not differ in the examination, which is in all three. So a candidate is not choosing between a short route and a long one. He is answering one list of four, and which list is available to him is decided by the degree he holds.
Two phrases in the entry carry the weight, and they are not the same phrase. The academic condition is qualified by in the field of the speciality, and so is the course. The experience condition is qualified instead by in the field of the work. The transcribed text does not define either phrase and does not say whether the two describe the same thing. We record that they are two different wordings in one entry, we read no equivalence between them, and where a file turns on the difference we put it to the Ministry with both phrases quoted.
One more observation, and it is the one that matters most in the files we review. The experience figure is the condition a candidate cannot acquire by booking anything. A degree is obtained, a course is attended and an examination is taken; ten years is counted. So where a department is short on this entry, it is usually short on the experience line or on the evidence for it, and the question that follows is how that period is to be evidenced. The transcribed entry does not say what document proves it, and we do not supply one: that is asked of the Ministry before a file is submitted.
The general conditions that reach into this entry
The conditions of this entry are not the whole of what a file for a medical physicist has to answer, because the medical part of the schedule opens with three general conditions that sit above the numbered entries. Their full wording is set out in the general-conditions article of this series and is not repeated here. Two of the three bear on this entry, and a file assembled from the entry alone will miss both.
The first general condition requires the applicant to hold a licence from the health authority to practise the medical work sought, so the radiation licence for this role presupposes a health practice licence for it. The two licences are granted by two different bodies, with two renewal cycles, and a register that holds only the radiation licences cannot show whether this condition is still answered.
The third general condition is the one candidates ask about, and it is narrower than it is usually reported to be. It exempts from the condition of passing training courses in radiation protection one who presents proof that he obtained courses in radiation protection in his university study of not less than three credit hours, which the text glosses as thirty training hours. So on this entry it bears on the training condition, and the text at that place says nothing about any of the three academic conditions, and nothing about the prescribed medical examination. The evidence it names is academic, the proof has to be produced, and whether a particular transcript answers it is read by the competent authority.
A note on the exemption in the third general condition, because it is the provision in the medical part that is most often read more widely than it is written. On its words it exempts a person from the condition of passing training courses in radiation protection, and it does so for one who presents proof that he obtained courses in radiation protection in his university study of not less than three credit hours, a figure the text itself then glosses as thirty training hours. Three limits follow from the wording and we state no more than them. It is an exemption from that condition, and the text says nothing there about any academic condition and nothing there about the prescribed medical examination. It operates on proof presented by the applicant, so whether a particular transcript answers it is read by the competent authority and not by us. And it names university study, which is not something the Institute awards: a course delivered by a training provider is not a university course and carries no credit hours, so this exemption is not a route the Institute can put anyone on.
The five entries of this batch, side by side
The table sets the five entries transcribed for this batch against one another on the conditions each of them contains. It is a reading of medical items 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, each quoted in full in the Arabic version of its own article in this batch, and nothing is added to it. On this entry the two rows to read first are the academic row and the experience row, because this is the only entry of the five that contains an experience condition at all, and the only one whose conditions come in alternative routes. The supervision row is the mirror image: it is empty here and filled for two of the entries beside it.
Medical items 4 to 8 compared
| Condition | Medical physicist in radiotherapy, item 4 | Specialist doctors, item 5 | Resident doctors, item 6 | Non-specialist doctors, item 7 | Dentists, item 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Academic condition | The first, second or third university degree in the field of the speciality, one per route | The certificate of specialisation, with no field qualifier and no phrase setting the level as a floor | No academic condition in the entry | No academic condition in the entry | No academic condition in the entry |
| Radiation protection course | Required, in the field of the speciality, from an approved centre | Required, in the field of the speciality, from an approved centre | Required, in the field of the speciality, from an approved centre | Required, in the field of the speciality, from an approved centre | Required, in the field of the speciality, from an approved centre |
| How the course condition is worded | That he pass a course | That he pass a course | That he shall have passed a course | That he shall have passed a course | That he shall have passed a course |
| Experience | Not less than ten, five or three years in the field of the work, one figure per route | No experience condition in the entry | No experience condition in the entry | No experience condition in the entry | No experience condition in the entry |
| Supervision | Not in the entry | Not in the entry | Required, under the supervision of a specialist and licensed person | Required, under the supervision of a specialist and licensed person | Not in the entry |
| Prescribed medical examination | Required in each of the three routes | Required | Required | Required | Required |
| Conditions in the entry | Four in each route, and three routes | Three | Three | Three | Two |
What to settle before the file is assembled
Below is the order we use when a department asks us to look at a file on this entry before it is submitted. It is the Institute's own working practice, and the entry sets out no form of file.
Preparing a file on this entry
Decide which route the file is built on before anything is collected
- The entry offers three routes and a file answers one of them. The degree the candidate holds decides which route is available, and the experience figure follows from that route rather than being chosen: not less than ten years with the first degree, not less than five with the second, not less than three with the third.
- Record on the file which route is relied on, because a file that leaves it unstated is a file whose experience figure cannot be checked against anything.
Settle how the experience period is to be evidenced, early
- The entry names a period in the field of the work and does not name a document that proves it. So the evidence is assembled rather than produced from a drawer: service certificates, the dates they cover and the description of the work in them.
- Whether a described period answers the condition is read by the competent authority. Ask with the wording of the condition quoted and the dates set out, and keep the answer with the file.
Read the two field phrases separately, not as one
- The degree and the course are qualified by the field of the speciality; the experience is qualified by the field of the work. The entry does not say the two are the same, and we read no equivalence. Where a candidate's degree points one way and his service another, that is the question to ask rather than to settle in-house.
Confirm the provider in writing, because the entry describes it
- The course condition describes the course as coming from an approved centre, and the entry does not define that phrase, does not say who gives the approval, and does not say whether it is a general standing or given for a particular course. So we do not answer for the Ministry. Name the course and its provider together and ask, before the course is booked.
Pair the radiation licence with the health practice licence in one register
- The first general condition makes one the precondition of the other, and they expire on different dates. Record the scope of the health licence and not only its number, because the condition describes it as being for the medical work sought.
- Whoever watches one expiry date should watch both, because a file that was complete on the day it was submitted is not a file that stays complete.
Settle the prescribed medical examination once for the department
- One written answer from the Ministry about which examination is prescribed and at what interval serves every licence holder in the department, while the examination itself is a condition on an individual and each holder keeps his own record.
- The entry names the prescribed medical examination and does not describe its purpose. Our reading is that it is a condition in the person for the licence, that it does not stand in for the training course the entry names, and that it does not stand in for anything in operational protection.
Questions we are asked about this entry
Can a candidate mix the routes: a master's degree with ten years?
Mixing is not what the entry asks for and it is also not something it forbids in words. Each route is a list of four conditions and a file answers one list. A candidate with the second degree and ten years of experience exceeds the figure his route names, which is a different thing from answering another route. We state the structure and stop: whether a file is read against the route whose degree it matches is for the competent authority, and it costs little to ask, with the three routes quoted side by side.
Does the doctorate route name the medical examination, as is said of the industrial entries?
It does. The prescribed medical examination is named in each of the three routes of this entry, and we checked the three line by line against the transcribed text before writing this. Industrial items 11 and 12, and medical item 9, read differently on this point: their doctorate route does not name the examination, and that is how the original reads rather than an omission in the transcription. So those items read differently from this one, and this entry is read on its own words.
Our physicist works in diagnostic imaging, not radiotherapy. Does this entry cover him?
The entry names the function as a medical physicist in the field of radiotherapy, so the field is part of what it licenses rather than background to it. The transcribed text of this part contains no numbered entry for a medical physicist in another field, and we say that as a fact about what we transcribed and not as a statement that none exists anywhere in the instrument. The third part of the schedule provides that applications for specialities not stated in the instructions go to the Radiation Protection Committee. So the route for a physicist in another field is to describe the role and ask, rather than to read this entry across.
Can the Institute provide the degree, or count our in-house years as the experience?
Neither. The academic condition on every route names a university degree, and the Institute awards no university qualification of any level and no credit hours. The experience condition names a period in the field of the work, and a period of service is a fact about employment that no training provider certifies. What the Institute delivers is radiation protection training, which goes to the course condition; whether a particular course at a particular provider answers that condition is for the Ministry to say. Alongside the training the Institute reads the file against the route relied on and drafts the enquiry.
Does the entry say the physicist supervises the technicians?
It does not. This entry contains no supervision condition at all, in either direction: it does not place the physicist under supervision and it does not place anyone under his. The schedule does contain a supervision condition in other places, in the conditions of the resident and the non-specialist doctors and in the trainee provision of its third part, and the wording in those places is not identical either. So reporting lines inside a department are a matter for the employer and for the conditions of the facility licence, and this entry settles none of them.
A technical note: the licence is not the protection
A technical note, and it is the most important passage on this page. The conditions in this Decision are licensing conditions, not department work instructions. Meeting them, and any licence that follows, replaces nothing in operational protection, and no course makes anyone safe by itself. One rule governs every judgement about whether a source or a beam is live: it is settled by measurement, never by inference.
The measurement is made by the licensee, through a person qualified to make it, and the instrument has to respond to the radiation actually present and at the energies present. An instrument that reads only photons tells an operator nothing about a pure beta emitter beside it, and a survey meter outside its calibration validity reads a number rather than a dose rate. So the instrument is within its calibration validity and response-checked before work starts.
What does not count is an inference. Not an indicator lamp, not a position readout, not an interlock that has never been tested, and not the fact that the list was worked through as planned. And if the measurement does not establish that the beam is off or the source is shielded, the work stops where it is, no one enters, and the licensee acts on his own emergency arrangements and notifies the Ministry. The place of those duties is not this Decision: they fall to the Law, the Regulation and the conditions of the licensee's own licence, none of which is transcribed for this explanation.
The work this entry licenses is where the largest deliberate doses in the hospital are decided, and it puts one person next to both kinds of hazard in the same department. A treatment machine is energised and then not: the state relied on before anyone works at the head, the collimator or the couch is established by cutting the power and by removing the means of energising it, and then confirmed by measurement. At the higher beam energies, induced activity may remain in the head and the collimator after the beam stops, so the measurement at the equipment settles what the power switch does not. A sealed source used for treatment is a different thing entirely, because it has no off state: it is shielded or it is not, and a position readout on a console is an inference this rule does not count. The order matters for one reason worth stating plainly: nothing done to the machine changes the state of the sealed source. The machine is dealt with on its own terms, and the source remains exactly as it was throughout, so a de-energised machine is no evidence at all about the source, and entry to the room is governed by the source and not by the machine. Two further points belong to this role in particular. The instrument used to establish a state has to respond to the radiation and the energies actually present, within its calibration validity and response-checked before work starts, and a reading taken with the wrong instrument is not a smaller measurement but no measurement. And a source that was placed in or against a patient is accounted for after the treatment as deliberately as before it, by measurement and against the licensee's own records. Where the measurement does not establish the state relied on, the work stops where it is, nobody enters, and the licensee acts on his emergency arrangements and notifies the Ministry.
How the Institute can help
Two findings recur on medical physicist files. The first is a file that never states which of the three routes it is built on, so its experience evidence is read against a figure nobody has fixed, and the reviewer cannot tell whether ten years, five or three is the number that applies. The second is a degree that points at one field and a record of service that points at another, offered against an entry that qualifies the degree by the field of the speciality and the experience by the field of the work, which are two different phrases in one entry.
The Institute delivers radiation protection training, reads a candidate's file against the route of medical item 4 it is built on and against the three general conditions, drafts the enquiry to the Ministry on how a period of service is to be evidenced, on the standing of a named course at a named provider and on the prescribed medical examination, and advises on the register that pairs each radiation licence with the health practice licence it depends on. The university degree every route of this entry names is an academic qualification awarded by a university, and the Institute does not issue it: the Institute awards no university qualification of any level and no credit hours. What the Institute delivers is radiation protection training, and whether a particular course at a particular provider answers the course condition in a numbered entry is for the Ministry to say.
Scope of what the Institute does: training and consulting. Field radiation surveys are carried out through specialist partners. The Institute does not carry out laboratory analysis, instrument calibration or equipment testing.
A note on the source of the course, because all five of the entries transcribed for this batch name one. All five of them ask for a training course in radiation protection in the field of the speciality, and all five describe where it is to come from with an Arabic phrase this explanation renders as from an approved centre. The entries transcribed for this explanation do not define that phrase, do not say who gives that approval, and do not say whether it is a general standing or given for a particular course. Where the description appears, it qualifies the provider of the training and no other party. The English wording is a rendering chosen for this explanation and is not a term of art: our practical reading is to ask in the Arabic wording of the entry, naming the specific course and the specific provider together, and to keep the answer in writing, because what the instrument leaves open the authority settles. The Institute is a licensed training provider and describes itself that way and no other way.
A second note on a name, and this one belongs to the medical part in particular. The first of the three general conditions ties a radiation licence to a licence to practise the medical work sought, and it names the body that grants that licence as the National Health Authority. That is the name the body carried when the Decision was issued in 2007. The authority that licenses health practitioners today is the Ministry of Public Health. So the medical part of this schedule points at one authority for the health practice licence and another for the radiation work licence, and they are not the same body. The old name is kept only inside the verbatim Arabic quotation in the general-conditions article of this series.
A note on the authorities the text names, because the provisions transcribed for this explanation do not use one single word for the radiation authority. What they name is the Radiation Protection Committee: the preamble records that the Decision was issued on its recommendation, and the third part of the schedule refers applications for specialities that are not stated in the instructions to it. The preamble also refers to the Executive Regulation of Decree Law 31 of 2002, issued by decision of the President of the Supreme Council for the Environment and Natural Reserves, number 4 of 2003, and the body that name belongs to no longer exists. Competence today sits with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, and the unit concerned is named in the organisational decisions as the Radiation Protection Department. The older names are kept only inside the verbatim Arabic quotations on the Arabic version of this article; in the Institute's own advice the authority is written as the Ministry.
This explanation is published for awareness by the radiation protection team at ALDuha Institute for Training and Environmental Consulting. The English text is an explanation, not a certified translation: the Arabic text published in the Official Gazette prevails in the event of any difference, and every wording quoted from the Decision on this page is quoted verbatim in the Arabic version of it. The three general conditions of the medical part are referred to here and set out in full in the general-conditions article of this series. This explanation is introductory. It is not a legal opinion, it does not replace the conditions of your own licence, and it does not replace review by the regulator. Last updated 11 October 2026.