Guest McCarey007 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 Many healthcare workers have been striking in the past - but what is everyone's opinion on it? Is it ethical for doctors to strike or withdraw some services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macdaddyeh Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Sure, why not? I say yes to doctors being able to strike if they are not breaking any laws. If they are in a legal strike position, then I'm all for it. I would like to know why "ethics" even has to be brought in: likely because striking would effect services. So what! I imagine a framework is in place such that life threatening, urgent and acute cases are able to be dealt with, but elective surgeries and minor incidents may not elicit immediate attention. Many of you may recall how in past years teachers strikes have seriously affected student education in many localities. Sometimes the teaching profession has lost credibility and even more devastating is that they have sometimes not even won any concessions, so it is a difficult thing financially, emotionally etc to decide to strike because of what is at stake. Nonetheless, my position is that yes it is ethical if you feel it is ethical (based on your own definition of ethical). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest not rex morgan Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 There was a doctor's strike somewhere in the states (sorry can't remember where, or for exactly how long...I think 6 weeks). General health of the region actually increased. That being said, if I had my life on hold for a year or so b/c I was in agonising back pain and needed a surgery, I'd be pretty choked if the docs cancelled elective surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Are you talking about the docs who wanted to strike because their malpractice insurance was skyrocketing? Yeah, if I were a patient I woould be pretty upset if my doc went on strike and I had to cancel a needed surgery to reduce pain. But, I think that with any strike you are trading short-term pain for long-term gains. And, strikes in the public service sector will always involve inconvienance to the user population. Of course, in the health care sector this may mean poorer delivery of medical services with the real potential of serious consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nubar89 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 One of the fundamental tenets of a national socialized health care system is that health care is a shared responsibility. As a doctor, your share of the responsibility is arguably greater than that of the average citizen. This responsibility is an inherent aspect of the Hippocratic oath. Therefore, it is unethical for doctors to strike for financial reasons. To draw an analogy between striking doctors and striking teachers is false, and only recognizes the superficial nature of the issue. Put simply, a teacher joining a picket line may bring a temporary halt to an individual’s education, but a doctor joining a picket line may cause injury or even death. I realize that this opinion may seem a little melodramatic, but the point is that the pursuit of a medical career has unique challenges, rewards and burdens. When one undertakes such a responsibility, one agrees to unconditionally, provide healing for the sick, and to "do no harm". Therefore striking as a doctor presents philosophical and moral inconsistencies that cannot be justified by monetary motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icedog12 Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Physicians, whether they are part of a nationally-funded health-care system or some other system, function as agents to provide health care and are interested in the well-being of their patients. In addition, they play a broader social, political, and economic role as a member of an institution (ie., health care) that is one part that makes up a system. Other institutions (eg., education, social assistance, environment, finance) play a different but comparative role in that all contribute to how our society runs. While the health care system provides a vital service to society, the act of receiving good-quality health care is still a privilege that many people in other countries do not have. I am contending that people do not have an intrinsic and absolute 'right' to be entitled to receive care by virtue of being a human being. Not in the same way as say, the right to freedom, autonomy, to breathe clean air etc. This is because someone else (a physician, for instance) has to provide this service. This other party has rights and values of their own. I agree that doctors have a heightened responsibility in society because of their impact on patients' lives. However, it is dubious to say that doctor's services must be provided unconditionally. Doctors are valuable to society and as human beings who are making a living they deserve to be compensated in proportion to their value. This can come in the form of better working conditions, equipment, support staff, and finally, adequate financial compensaton. If there is a discrepancy, then doctors have a right to withhold their services unless that demand is met. While this may negatively affect some people in the short-term, this is the only way to ensure long-term survival of this system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Icedog, it's interesting (vis-a-vis what you wrote about rights vs priveleges) that the Romanow report asserts (as far as I remember) that Canadians generally see health care as a right of Canadian citizenship. (I don't know whether that relates to the right of doctors to strike, I just think it's interesting. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nubar89 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Icedog, First of all, I want to thank you for such an insightful reply to the question that I have raised. Indeed, the question relates to the issue of whether healthcare is a right vs. a privilege; I would support the former argument. In light of you comments, I have another question for you: if doctors withhold care, are they not harming their patients? Although I agree that striking may in certain instances be the lesser of two evils, i.e. in the efforts to improve the healthcare system vs. continuing to provide substandard care, I cannot justify doctors striking for personal financial gain. My interpretation of what I have read of the Canada Health Act is that healthcare is a basic human right guaranteed to all Canadian citizens. It is one of the many things, which makes our country great. Our healthcare system contrasts our values from those of our southern neighbors: for example, while we guarantee free healthcare to all of our citizens, Americans guarantee the "right to bear arms" to theirs (I am not US bashing, but only attempting to provide a clear contrast between our values and theirs). In a nutshell, I believe that as Canadians, we are privileged to have the right to free healthcare. Doctors striking for purely financial motives set a dangerous presidency, and this threatens to help degrade social healthcare. With the many years of education and experience forming relationships with people, I just think that doctors can probably resolve financial issues through consultation instead of striking. NBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icedog12 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 NBR, First, I'd like to begin by saying that I completely agree with you that it is unethical for doctors to strike for personal gain with the underlying motive being selfishness and greed. That is morally reprehensible. My argument is predicated on the assumption that doctors strikes, if justifiable, occur when there is a clear discrepancy between the amount of compensation a doctor receives in proportion to the amount of time, energy, and quality of service that is provided. For example, Newfoundland doctors, prior to their strike in October 2002, were by far the lowest paid in the country and were often paid more than 20% less than doctors in the other Maritime provinces (according to CMAJ). I also want to emphasize that money isn't the only nor most important consideration in deciding to strike. Unreasonably long hours, shortage of support staff, and lack of sufficient diagnostic equipment are other possible factors. I agree that all possible consultation and negotiations should be exhausted in order to resolve these differences and that withdrawal of services should be a LAST resort. But I believe that this resort should be available. In order to preserve the integrity of the profession, society must decide what a physician's service is 'worth' and compensate accordingly. Physicians are mostly compassionate people devoted to the well-being of their patients and often make tremendous sacrifices. However, I think it is unreasonable to assert that doctors are obligated to, and must unconditionally make these sacrifices in the context of unfair working conditions. When I say that health care is a privilege, I do not mean that it is simply a commodity that might be purchased for a price. It is a privilege in that we are fortunate to have the material and human resources that allow us to receive a reasonably high level of health care. But health care is still not an 'absolute, inalienable' right. If I am sick, I do not have an intrinsic claim to health care since that service must be provided by someone else. If it were, then every health care worker with the means to provide health care should be working 24/7 because there would always presumably be someone, somewhere at some time who requires care. A doctor who takes a vacation or a weekend would then be violating a patients 'right' to health care because the doctor is not on duty, and thus unavailable to attend the patient's illness. This is different than how the Canada Health Act conceptualizes the definition of right. My overall point is not to belittle the status of patients who might suffer from service that is withheld, but to defend a doctor's autonomy and integrity. We should not place such a burden on someone by demanding that they continue to do something if it is not fair to them. Anyways, I hope I've clearly stated the conditions under which I believe a doctor's strike is ethically justified and the reasons why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.