기사 메일전송
Is It Necessary to Expand the Medical School Quota and Establish a Public University?
  • 김강택
  • 등록 2020-11-16 15:44:34
  • 수정 2020-11-16 15:49:43
기사수정

 In the aftermath of COVID-19, professional medical staff played an important role. Limits have also been revealed on the overall healthcare system, including a shortage of medical personnel and sickbeds, and regional medical gaps. In response, the government wanted to train more specialists through “expanding the medical college quota and establishing public universities,” but medical staff pointed out that disproportionate deployment by medical departments and regions is a real problem, and are conducting a medical strike, expressing that the total number of doctors is sufficient. The Pharos wants to hear the opinions of students at Kyonggi University regarding these two conflicting positions.

 

Is the number of Korean doctors insufficient?

Striking side : The absolute number of doctors is small, but Korea’s medical accessibility is among the highest in the world. The Korea Medical Association argues that Korea, which has a compact territory and has the highest medical accessibility, should not be hung up on the number of doctors. The example of Greece, which ranks first in the number of doctors in the OECD, and Cuba, which boasts a highly developed medical system, is an example of how the number of doctors is meaningless. Doctors say that although Korea has fewer doctors per population compared to other countries, it is unnecessary to expand the number of medical schools because it has the highest accessibility. Even on islands as many as 2,000 public health doctors are located in each remote area and primary care is guaranteed throughout the country. It is a complex problem that involves various medical and administrative macro-problems, such as lack of medical employment in Seoul, lack of local infrastructure, and poor public healthcare in South Korea.

Critics : The ostensible reason for the policy of expanding the medical school quota is that Korea has fewer doctors and is suffering from a shortage of medical personnel. South Korea has 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people, less than the OECD average of 3.5, and Colombia is the only country in the OECD that has fewer doctors per capita than Korea. Some argue that the lack of doctors is not a big problem because of its good accessibility, but this is an argument that is hard to accept. The problem of the lack of doctors is solved only when both accessibility and the number of doctors are satisfactory, not simply because of good accessibility.

 

Is the strike timed?

Striking side : What is inappropriate is not the “time of the doctors’ strike” but the “time of the government's legislative push.” In the event of a local forest fire, let’s think of legislation that restricts firefighters’ rights. Is it okay for the government to suppress firefighters in emergency situations and not for firefighters to strike to protect their rights? The people who sacrifices the most in the COVID-19 situation are the frontline medical staff. The government, however, is not giving compensation to the medical staff, but putting pressure on them. Currently, the Korean Medical Association has been insisting on the withdrawal of the policy long before the outbreak of the large church-centered infection as of August 17. And they are consistently vowing to return to work as soon as the policy is withdrawn. What should be thought of here is that it is much more difficult to abolish a law and its consequences in Korean politics than to make one. It takes time to re-discuss the abolition and pass the National Assembly, and many interests overlap due to the results that have already occurred. That is why they are now demanding a definite answer on the withdrawal of the bill, which has yet to be passed.

Critics : Regardless of the right or wrong of the strike, there is criticism that the timing of the strike is very inappropriate. Amid the outbreak of COVID-19, many point out that it is too much to strike at a time when each doctor is in desperate need. In addition, as of August 2020, when the strike was scheduled to take place, a massive mass infection of COVID-19 occurred, led by large churches, and the doctors’ association also went ahead with the strike on Aug. 26, 27, and 28, despite the outbreak of the COVID-19 mass infection. Of course, considering the effect of the strike, it is most effective to strike at a time when doctors are most in need. However, as mentioned earlier, the desperate need for medical personnel means that each of the medical personnel is in a dire situation, so simply striking in such a crisis can be seen as exetremely selfish. The same is true of the controversial issue of the “fight for rights” and the public opinion is very cold.

 

Is the doctors’ strike a selfish battle of their own?

Striking side : The increase in the number of fight for rights and groups of doctors participating in the strike actually has little to do with it. It will take more than 10 years to train new doctors, plus another 10 years of mandatory service. and Therefore nearly 20 years, new doctors will enter the market to compete with incumbent doctors working already. However, in 20 years it will be time for established members to consider retirement, and for those who are most active in the strike, they are in a position to hire yonger doctors. If you weigh it with money, you can hire Pay Doctor cheaper which is already established, which could be beneficial. Doctors say the “fight for rightst” is a frame of the government's partial opinion, and argue that the issue of medicine and medical unification is not a “fight for rights.”

Critics : The reason why this case is considered a fight for rights by the public and public opinion is very cold is that the aforementioned controversy over the increase in medical personnel is the logic of exclusion of competitors, and for other reasons, the strike claims that local jobs are not good. However, there is a question of whether this is the opinion of the doctors because strike forces such as the Korean Medical Association and the Council of Major Medicine said that raising prices or giving a lot of incentives can solve the problem of local medical care. In other words, if you are given more money than you are now, you will do your job again. The strike side explains that this is not cause - the case, but there is already an opinion that the scarcity value of the doctor disappears when looking at the statement of a university representative from the association. This means that the problem is a fight for rights.

 

Through the discussion, we listened to the opinions of both sides regarding the expansion of the medical school quota and the establishment of a public university. We can’t evaluate what opinions are right or wrong now, but we have to think about which direction is good for the people. A tense war of nerves between the government and medical staff is expected to continue. Hopefully this situation will be resolved in a manner that is best for everyone

 

 

Management EditorGONG JINYOUNGwlsdud03520@naver.com

74th ReporterKIM GANGTAEKrkdxor753@naver.com

TAG
0
모바일 버전 바로가기