Should Doctors Be Allowed to Strike?

[elsenor]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I recently got asked this question in an interview, and I was stumped. I was able to think of arguments for both sides of the issues but in order to take a stance, I said that doctors should be allowed to strike if it is for the benefit of the patient.

What are your opinions regarding this topic?

 

[Lost in Translation]

For the benefit of the patient? In what way?

FWIW I think they should be allowed to, but they don't because they know that if they do everything will go to ****. But that's also why I think they should, to show just how important they are to healthcare. It's very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

 

[Med Ed]

I recently got asked this question in an interview, and I was stumped. I was able to think of arguments for both sides of the issues but in order to take a stance, I said that doctors should be allowed to strike if it is for the benefit of the patient.

What are your opinions regarding this topic?

Physicians who work inside a particular health system can organize and, in theory, legally strike. The public relations optics of that move might not be so awesome for the profession, however.

Physicians in general cannot legally strike, for essentially the same reason that the major auto manufacturers can't get together and decide to collectively raise all their car prices. It would violate anti-trust laws.

 

[863168]

@Med Ed Too bad the latter happens behind closed doors more frequently than people would presume.

 

[aldol16]

I think doctors deserve the right to strike if they are being treated unfairly by hospital administration, just like any other workers. But I think they need to be especially cognizant of whether the strike affects care. If the entire ER strikes, there is no one to take care of patients - what happens when somebody comes into the ER? Or what happens when there is no continuity of care due to the strike? I can see how patients could be harmed by a strike, so there should be safeguards in place to ensure that the doctors can put pressure on hospital administration to get treated fairly while also ensuring that their patients aren't negatively affected.

 

[elsenor]

For the benefit of the patient? In what way?

For example, if the doctors think a hospital is not doing enough to maintain the sanitation in the hospital.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

If the entire ER strikes, there is no one to take care of patients - what happens when somebody comes into the ER?

They’ll hire a bunch of NPs for half the cost.

 

[Med Ed]

I think doctors deserve the right to strike if they are being treated unfairly by hospital administration, just like any other workers. But I think they need to be especially cognizant of whether the strike affects care. If the entire ER strikes, there is no one to take care of patients - what happens when somebody comes into the ER? Or what happens when there is no continuity of care due to the strike? I can see how patients could be harmed by a strike, so there should be safeguards in place to ensure that the doctors can put pressure on hospital administration to get treated fairly while also ensuring that their patients aren't negatively affected.

If docs feel they are being treated unfairly in the workplace they tend to vote with their feet. Organizing a strike where patient care is not affected would be a rather toothless display. It might run afoul of the state medical board, which could consider the whole thing to be patient abandonment and therefore issue disciplinary sanctions for unprofessional conduct. It would be a potential PR disaster, easily cast as greedy doctors who are pissed off at only driving E-Class. Oh, and the day the strike starts the ambulance-chasers would all go out and buy new boats.

So I see it as a lose-lose-lose-lose situation, but I'm sure there are contrary opinions.

 

[Terry Toma]

To me, striking is really only justified at the very low end of the labor market. Striking is essentially price fixing/collusion, but it is allowed for low-skilled workers because we've decided that they need this advantage in order to partially offset their complete lack of market power.

Physicians are skilled workers, and they don't have the lack of market power that would necessitate striking. If conditions are poor at one place of employment, they can easily find a new situation. Case Farms chicken plant workers need the right to strike. Physicians don't.

As far as striking over conditions that put patients at risk, there are better ways to remedy those issues.

 

[aldol16]

They’ll hire a bunch of NPs for half the cost.

NPs can hold down the fort on most things but not some critical cases like emergency surgical procedures. But like someone already said, I guess the point of striking is to cause a disturbance at the workplace that would cause the employer to rethink their options. It's just that in healthcare, there's a human cost associated with that disturbance.

 

[deleted804295]

Doctors in my opinion have a duty to their patient. A national strike means patients are not getting the care that they need. Part of being a doctor is being selfless for the good of the patient.

 

[de Ribas]

For example, if the doctors think a hospital is not doing enough to maintain the sanitation in the hospital.

there are many organizations that are responsible for assessing and regulating how hospitals work. It' not doctors' job to do that

 

[7331poas]

I know of a recent "strike" where physicians simply did not put ROSs in their charts

 

[rabbott1971]

Framed so simply -- "should physicians be 'allowed' to strike?" -- then the answer to the question must be yes.

A walkout could well be justified, if physicians are not given a safe work environment, if verbal and physical abuse are heaped upon the physicians, if the workplace is operated in a racist manner, if physicians are not allowed breaks for meals or bathroom, etc. etc.

If you say no to the question, then that seems to say physicians, unlike all other workers, must endure any and all abusive conditions, no matter what. That seems unfair, and ultimately not good for patients, as physicians will not perform efficiently in an intolerably hostile work environment. I would think the question would be followed by further questions attempting to find the tipping point between more trivial physician concerns, and more certain patient harm resulting from a strike. That would be interesting to discuss, but I would say you would have to start by acknowledging doctors are humans, who have the right to flee oppression and abuse just like all other humans.

 

[deleted804295]

Framed so simply -- "should physicians be 'allowed' to strike?" -- then the answer to the question must be yes.

A walkout could well be justified, if physicians are not given a safe work environment, if verbal and physical abuse are heaped upon the physicians, if the workplace is operated in a racist manner, if physicians are not allowed breaks for meals or bathroom, etc. etc.

If you say no to the question, then that seems to say physicians, unlike all other workers, must endure any and all abusive conditions, no matter what. That seems unfair, and ultimately not good for patients, as physicians will not perform efficiently in an intolerably hostile work environment. I would think the question would be followed by further questions attempting to find the tipping point between more trivial physician concerns, and more certain patient harm resulting from a strike. That would be interesting to discuss, but I would say you would have to start by acknowledging doctors are humans, who have the right to flee oppression and abuse just like all other humans.

This is a great juxtaposition from my earlier post and many others seeing that doctor work must be selfless. The line should be drawn at human rights violations so you've changed my mind. Kudos to you.