Only dialogue can save K-medicine

The government must find a balance between its inflated sense of ego as the architect of medical policy and open-mindedness.

Jaung HoonThe author is a professor emeritus at Chung-Ang University and a columnist for the JoongAng Ilbo. Like K-pop and the K-defense industry, K-medicine — another pillar of Korean pride — has been adrift for months. As the government and major doctors have been at loggerheads for more than six months, disturbing news has been adding pressure. Following the recent report that Kim Chong-in, former interim leader of the governing People Power Party, had been rejected treatment at over 20 emergency rooms, the father of Democratic Party Rep. Kim Han-kyu died after being rejected treatment at many hospitals. The fast spreading news about delayed surgeries of ordinary citizens only fuel public anxiety.

Given the fierce confrontation between the medical community and the government over complex issues — such as essential medicines, regional hospitals and the medical school admissions quota — let’s first think about the core of K-medicine.

Recently, there are many contents on YouTube where foreign youngsters who have settled in Korea invite their parents from their home countries to experience K-medicine. Through their perspective, we can see the characteristics of Korean medical care. Parents of those YouTubers from the United States and the United Kingdom come to Seoul to receive treatment for back pain and other illnesses.

In their eyes, K-medicine is an efficient system which is fairly affordable, easily accessible to everyone and abundant in skilled medical staff. Appointments and tests that would take months in America and Britain are available within a day or two, if not weeks.

Their second surprise is the relatively low cost of medical care. Compared to medical fees in developed countries, Korea’s medical bills are unbelievably low for foreigners. Furthermore, K-medicine was full of skilled and seasoned doctors from local clinics to major hospitals. That was what K-medicine was about until February.

The government boldly attempted to change that medical system in the name of healthcare reform. It was convinced that the number of doctors should be drastically increased to prepare for a shortage of specialty doctors in essential medicines, the poor medical service in rural areas and the aging society. Initially, the public and the media supported the government for its crusade against the vested interests of doctors.

After the government took a hard-line stance based on public sentiments, the center of the backlash was the 10,000 resident doctors who had been doing tough jobs at large hospitals. They believe that the current preference of a few medical fields will not be easily resolved by rapidly increasing the enrollment quota of medical schools. Instead, they said the medical insurance coverage for essential medicines should be raised significantly and risks such as lawsuits against doctors should be addressed first. Eventually, 10,000 resident doctors left their hospitals in February. General hospitals and patients who had been relying on the resident doctors are now exhausted and the deficits of these hospitals are snowballing.

After more than half a year of K-medicine drifting, the public sentiments are changing. The people — who initially criticized medical doctors for insisting on their vested interests — have shifted to a pragmatic stance. Ordinary citizens now want the government and doctors to start dialogue first, as the damages and anxiety caused by their conflict are suffered by patients and ordinary people.

The government must abandon its previous approach of framing healthcare policy changes as a grand reform rationale. In concept, you can elaborately design a grand cause and reform agenda — and imagine the resistance of the vested interest group against a true change.

But in reality, could there really be a system change package that can be applied immediately that everyone can agree on? Does the black-and-white logic — in which the government is the savior of reform and doctors are the anti-reform group — truly fit the reality? For example, if we just increase the number of medical students by 2,000, will we actually see the miraculous revival of essential medicines and medical services in rural areas?

I also believe that trainee doctors, who have been silently supporting the lower structure of K-medicine, need to change their position. Most people know that K-medicine was possible thanks to their long work hours and low wages. On the premise that the government fully understands reality, those doctors must start talks with the government. They should be a part of the discussion to find realistic ways to improve their treatments, revive essential medicines and restore medical services in rural areas.

The Yoon Suk Yeol administration probably wants to be remembered in history as a government that defended freedom and democracy. In a world of freedom repeatedly underscored by the president, there can be no clear distinction between good and evil and reform and anti-reform. Openness to conflicting views and opposition positions are what liberalism is all about.

The government must find a balance between its inflated sense of ego as the architect of medical policy and open-mindedness. Trainee doctors must find a realistic balance between the autonomy they seek as medical professionals and their obligations as doctors. The people are on pins and needles every day.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.