Recently, the South Korean government said it will increase the quota of medical school students. And, doctors' strikes have begun. While the government has warned that those who strike will face dire consequences, a number of doctors have started to stop working in protest of the government's policy. Doctors' voices should be carefully listened, but their reactions cannot be justified. Given the importance of the job, strikes are one of the worst ways for doctors to raise their voices. Apart from this, many experts find it difficult to understand their claims.
First, as the country is now facing a rapid aging population, increasing the number of doctors is indispensable. South Korea is going to become a super aging society by 2030, which means that the quarter of its population is over 65. There's littlie doubt that demand for doctors would be high in the distant future, as the elderly need more health care services. This is not the only problem facing the country. A lack of doctors in provincial areas matters, too. Many experts point out that the concentration of population in Seoul and neighboring areas is the main culprit of the country's lowest birth rate. And medical services are not free from this. The nation's five largest hospitals are all located in Greater Seoul, which means that people should go to Seoul to get superb medical services. By contrast, residents in provincial areas find it difficult to see doctors, as most doctors try to get their jobs in Seoul. Some argue that increasing the number of doctors alone cannot solve the problem, because doctors would still want to live in Seoul in the future. Regarding this, we could draw lessons from Germany's case. Germany had the same problem with South Korea and also knew doctors would not want to live in provincial areas, even though the government had increased the quota at medical schools. However, the German government's rationale was simple : if there's enough number of doctors, there would be more doctors not only in cities, but also in provincial areas. It turned out that the German government was right. Germany has successfully increased the number of doctors and resolved the problem.
Second, strikes holding patients hostage are immoral. Doctors argue that strikes are one of the basic rights of workers. This could prove right only to some extent. In most liberal democracies, constitutions-including South Korean one- say nothing comes first than people's lives. Doctors' right to strike is not an exception. As trainee doctors have started to stop working, patients have difficulty getting basic medical services, even in emergency rooms. Doctors in most advanced countries are fully aware of the fact that their strikes could threaten people's lives. This is the reason that doctors' strikes are very unusual in foreign countries. Doctors in the UK had once stopped working, but that was largely driven by their low salaries, unlike the recent turmoils in South Korea.
In conclusion, if the strikes continue, doctors should be blamed for possible outcomes. People's lives are under threat due to the strikes. Doctors have many ways to speak up for their interests and strikes are far from the best option. The government should do more to pursuade doctors. It should provide incentives for those who working in provincial areas and essential health care services. In doing so, patients must be protected. Both doctors and the government put emphasis on patients, not their interests.
첫댓글 전체적으로 정보 값이 풍부하고 본인의 주장과 입장이 명확하게 잘 표현 된 것 같습니다. 특히 독일의 예를 들어 주신 건 해당 현안에 대해 잘 알고 있다는 걸 보여주는 것 같습니다. 퇴고 작성 시 독일 사례를 조금 더 부연 설명해주시고 비슷한 다른 나라의 사례도 들어주면 더 훌륭한 글이 되지 않을까 싶습니다.
서론에 많은 전문가들이 의사들의 주장에 헛점이 많다라고 하셨는데 이부분에 대해서는 구체적으로 언급이 없는 것 같습니다. 물의사들의 공식에는 "저출산,인구 감소"만 있지 "고령화로 인해 늘어나는 의료수요"는 없다라는 기사를 본 적이 있습니다. 이 부분도 2번째 문단에 추가해주시면 논리가 더 보완이 될 것 같습니다.
그리고 2번째 문단을 2개의 문단으로 쪼개면 좋을 것 같습니다. 같은 문단에 지방에 의료 인프라가 없다는 내용이 있는데 고령화 사회랑은 겹치는 부분이 조금 미미해서 아예 새로운 문단에 해당 내용을 넣으면 좋을 것 같습니다.
글 쓰시느라 수고 많으셨습니다
잘 읽었습니다! 본인의 뚜렷한 입장이 잘 보인 글이었습니다. 3문단 영국 의사 파업 예시가 인상 깊었습니다.
개인적으로 3번째 문단이 본인의 입장을 다시 한 번 각인시켜주는 거 같아 2문단과 3문단의 위치를 바꿔도 좋을 거 같다고 생각했습니다.
3번째 문단에 결론에서 "지방에서 일하는 의사에게 장려 임금을 지급해야 한다"라고 작성해주셨는데 2번째 문단 "지방 의료 인프라가 부족하다"는 내용이 나올 때 정부의 방안 중 하나로 언급해도 좋을 거 같습니다.
고생하셨습니다!
잘 읽었습니다! 논증이 명확하고 근거가 풍부해서 좋았습니다. 정보량이 많아지면 자칫 설명글처럼 보일 수 있는데, 하나의 논지로 잘 엮어낸 글이라고 생각했습니다.
다만 정현님 말씀처럼 서론에서, 앞으로 반박할 의사들의 주장을 짚어주셔도 좋을 것 같습니다. 실제로 2문단에서 말씀하신 것에 대한 반박들이 의협 보도자료에 나와있는 걸로 알고있어서요!
만약 퇴고하실 때, 좀 더 세부적인 관련 사례 찾고 싶으시면 2문단 관련해서 지난해 크게 이슈가 됐던 병원선 르포 등을 참고하셔도 좋을 것 같습니다.
또한 독일과 비슷한 사례로 일본도 있어서 미리 글감 확보해두시면 나중에 더 편하지 않을까합니다!
전반적으로 명확해서 뚜렷해서 좋았습니다.
수고많으셨습니다!