The government argues that this move is necessary to address the shortage of doctors in the country, which has one of the lowest doctor-to-population ratios among OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations at 2.6 doctors per 1,000 people. They claim that this shortage will worsen due to an aging population and increasing demand for healthcare services. The implemented plan aims to improve access to medical care in rural and underserved areas, where there is a noted lack of doctors. The government has proposed allocating more seats to medical schools outside the Seoul region. Additionally, a government survey found that around 80% of citizens support increasing the number of medical students, indicating public backing for the move.

However, the Korean Medical Association (KMA) strongly opposes the plan, arguing that the demand for doctors is already met, and an increase could lead to a surge in healthcare costs, disrupting the medical system. They claim there is no actual shortage of physicians. Doctors have raised concerns about potential educational chaos due to the sudden increase in students, as there may not be sufficient educational infrastructure and faculty to handle the larger numbers. The KMA initiated strikes on February 20th to protest the plan, causing disruptions in medical services and putting patients at risk. They argue that the government is using patient safety as leverage. Some doctors believe the issue should be addressed by improving compensation and working conditions in essential medical fields and rural areas rather than simply increasing the number of doctors. There are also concerns that the quality of medical education and services could decline with the rapid expansion of student intake.

While the government cites statistics to justify the need for more doctors, the medical community remains deeply opposed, leading to ongoing conflicts and disruptions in healthcare delivery. A balance between future demands and current concerns of medical professionals remains a major challenge. The dispute highlights the complex interplay between healthcare policy, resource allocation, and the interests of various stakeholders in the medical field. Resolving this conflict will require open dialogue, compromise, and a comprehensive approach that considers the long-term implications for the healthcare system and the well-being of the population. The government’s hurried and direct approach to increasing medical school admissions without adequate consultation and consensus-building with the medical community, is concerning. This unilateral decision seems to prioritize short-term goals over the root causes of healthcare challenges, such as improving working conditions, compensation, and resource allocation in underserved areas. A more collaborative and measured approach, involving extensive dialogue with stakeholders and a focus on systemic reforms, could have yielded a more sustainable and widely accepted solution. The government’s heavy-handed tactics have only served to deepen the rift with the medical community, leading to strikes, disruptions, and potential long-term consequences for the quality of medical education and healthcare delivery. It is crucial that a resolution is reached promptly for the sake of patients and society as a whole. Prolonged conflicts and disruptions in medical services can have severe consequences, particularly for those in need of urgent care or ongoing treatment. It is hoped that both parties will prioritize the well-being of the public and engage in constructive dialogue to find a mutually acceptable solution that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders while ensuring the long-term sustainability and quality of the healthcare system.