As of March 7^th, nearly 12,000 young doctors — 93% of the total across the country — had left their workplaces, according to the latest government estimate. The right to strike is recognized as a fundamental human right by the United Nations. Strikes by doctors are, however, complicated by their professional values and ethical framework. Most strikes affect a neutral third party to achieve strike demands, but when doctors strike, this third party is often unfortunately their patients. For many people, such behavior is inconsistent with the overriding duty of doctors to advocate for their patients.

The walkout by doctors from 100 teaching hospitals has led to canceled surgeries, longer waiting times, and delays in treatment including emergency care, according to the media. In Daejeon, a woman in her eighties who suffered from a cardiac arrest died in an ambulance after being turned away by seven hospitals due the lack of available doctors. In another case, chemotherapy treatment sessions have been postponed for a brain cancer patient in Daegu, despite the cancer being spread to his lungs and liver. Several pregnant women has had their C-sections canceled. In light of this, public opinions are also shifting. A poll published last week by Yonhap News Agency found that 84% of respondents supported hiring more doctors, and 43% said striking physicians should receive severe punishments, indicating a falling trust in the healthcare system. More concrete evidence that strikes affect the delivery of healthcare was shown by a recent systematic review that reported mortality data from five doctor strikes, all of which saw patient mortality increase during a strike. The extent of such disruption would depend on the healthcare setting, strike duration, and the extent of doctor participation. However, with the high number of doctors currently on strike, the medical void is all the more inevitable.  

In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the government announced measures to improve pay and conditions for trainee medics, as well as a review of the continuous 36 hours work shifts. Byung-wang Chun, Director of Health Policy in the Ministry of Health and Welfare, suggested that doctors who return will avoid punishment by promising immunity against penalties if they return within the set deadline. “The government will take into account the circumstances and protect trainee doctors if they return to work before the administrative measure is complete,” Chun said. He also added that the government will not give up on dialogue and the door will always be open. But the concessions have failed to placate doctors. 

Hovering at 2.1 in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) scale, South Korea is far below the average of 3.7 physicians per 1,000 people in the developed world. The country has been suffering from doctor shortages in some key professions, such as obstetrics and paediatrics, especially in rural regions outside of Seoul where a higher number of elderly people live. On the other hand, Korea’s rapidly aging population is often referred to as a major cause for the ever growing health care demand and expenditures. As a result it’s only logical for the government to increase the supply of doctors. Having more young doctors will reduce the expected increase of workload on senior doctors in the future. In fact, recruiting national medical workforce is more trustworthy and economical than importing international doctors. So is it really ethical to have a strike on policies that won’t have negative impacts but rather positive results in the future? Or will this strike shift the focus to how severely the healthcare system is money oriented, when a huge number of doctors and medical graduates are not striking for the wellbeing of patients, but in fear of future competition and reputation fall? 

The conflict between the government and doctors is currently creating a huge medical gap not only between the government and healthcare workers but also between doctors and the public, and is becoming a problem of life and safety. Doctors must carefully balance their rights as employees with their duties to their patients. It's also worth noting that there are alternative avenues for doctors to voice their concerns and advocate for change without resorting to strikes and having patients’ lives on stake. More efforts by hospital administrators to engage in dialogue and negotiation with government officials could lead to meaningful reforms that address doctors' grievances while ensuring continuity of care for patients. Specially that most hospitals’ key stakeholders are citizens and patients, but their interests are not being reflected in this discussion. It would, nevertheless, still be naïve to imagine that a strike can be undertaken without causing any harm to patients. And as a last message to doctors, remember the oath that you swore upon when joining the medical field and college, which states “First Do No Harm” before going on a strike, and make it your sole purpose.