From mountain villages to Seoul, outcries mount lamenting the lack of doctors to deliver babies, treat children, and perform heart surgery. That’s because there are fewer and fewer pediatricians, obstetricians, gynecologists, and surgeons, especially cardiothoracic surgeons.

High labor intensity, low pay compared to other specialties, and the risk of lawsuits push doctors away from essential medicine to cosmetic surgery. Recently, the Korean Association of Pediatric and Adolescent Physicians declared to shut down its department and allowed its members to learn cosmetology and botulinum toxin. In this reality, new doctors are also discouraged from practicing essential medicine.

An alternative argument is to “import doctors.”

It’s tempting. In a globalized world, why not bring in foreign doctors in training or work on exchange missions in Korea, expecting them to help bolster essential medical care? To tell the conclusion, however, this is all but impossible.

Korea is a country place where foreign doctors want to learn medicine. But it’s not a place they want to work.

Labor intensity is among the highest in the world, and wages are among the lowest. The number of treatments per doctor is 6,989, more than three times the OECD average of 2,122. Wages as a percentage of nominal GDP (adjusted for inflation) are 29th out of 35 OECD member countries. (Korea Health and Social Research Institute in 2019 and Health Policy Research Institute in 2021)

The language barrier is also a problem. There is no incentive for foreign doctors to learn Korean. If they can speak English, there are plenty of other options, including the United States. This is why third-world doctors don’t choose Korea.

However, the medical system can’t import doctors from developing countries where the healthcare system is not even close to what Korea was in the 1970s. It is questionable whether Korea can trust them with “essential” medical care, whether the quality of pediatric care will be guaranteed, and whether it can trust them with complex surgeries, such as heart surgery.

Physicians’ income is not a fundamental solution to the essential care problem. Those who claim so also know this deep down. It’s just another one of those emotional rants, like “Doctors must receive only 3 million won ($2,323) a year,” or “Let’s increase medical school enrollment to 100,000,” or “Let’s make public medical schools and station them in rural areas.” The problem is that it can be mistaken for a serious solution.

Do they believe doctors allocated to these areas against their will do their best for patients with a sense of mission and responsibility? In a mature democratic and capitalist society, the idea that someone should sacrifice in the name of a mission is anachronistic and totalitarian.

Similarly, increasing medical schools is not a solution. Healthcare, unlike other areas, is a specialized market where supply creates demand. The increase of doctors (supply) creates unnecessary healthcare services (demand), which increases healthcare costs for society. In the current situation, increasing the number of medical schools will only make the treatment of essential medical fields more vulnerable and drive more doctors to the popular field of cosmetic surgery. No vested interest conspiracy blocks the increase of doctors.

Of course, one cannot deny what some of our shameful seniors have done behind the public’s negative perception of doctors. The unfavorable impression of physicians has been reinforced by those who view patients as money, commit crimes, and are authoritarian and unkind to patients. However, most doctors save lives and care for their patients above all else.

Doctors are not saints living in the clouds. They are fellow citizens grounded in the real world. Undermining a sophisticated healthcare system and destroying healthcare resources out of anger will only hurt the health and care of people in the long run.

We can import drugs and medical devices but can’t import people recklessly. We need to put aside our emotions and think wisely about what is suitable for the well-being of our communities. It seems evident that treating and utilizing the existing workforce is one of those ways.