The government's so-called "medical reform," aimed at increasing the number of physicians in Korea, has led to unprecedented negative consequences, posing a serious threat to the present and future of the Korean people's right to life. With Korea’s medical ecosystem in collapse, both patients and the general public are facing immense difficulties.

I am one of the "many key players in K-medicine" specifically referenced by President Yoon Suk Yeol a year ago. As a member of the Seoul National University College of Medicine class of 1983, I have witnessed the remarkable rise of Korean hospitals into the global top 20 over the past 35 years—first as a resident, then as a clinical fellow, and later as a professor at Asan Medical Center (AMC). Now, I watch with deep concern as the tower we painstakingly built crumbles, fearing that even the very foundation needed for reconstruction may be lost.

That medical reform, along with President Yoon, who initiated the push to increase medical school admissions by 2,000 annually, is now approaching its final reckoning. The deadline for medical students to return to school—after which those on leave will face mass expulsion—is just 10 days away.

These nearly 10,000 medical students and over 10,000 trainee physicians who resigned last year, having been trained for 12 years, represent the future of Korean medicine.

Recently, media coverage of medical reform and the issue of medical school admissions has intensified. In March 2024, the government spread misinformation, claiming that Korean doctors earn the highest income among OECD countries and labeling the medical community as selfish for abandoning patients to protect their own interests. This year, it has continued its attacks, accusing young medical students of rejecting medical reform out of fear that future doctors’ incomes will decline.

The media, regarded as the stage for the final plea, report that the government is demonstrating unwavering commitment to pushing ahead with reform, while the medical community insists that the government must first acknowledge its mistakes and restore the situation to its original state. It has become a high-stakes game of chicken, leaving no room for compromise.

Recently, a key member of the National Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee, who had stepped forward as a mediator, blamed the conflict between the government and the medical community on what he called the medical community’s “collective selfishness.” His remarks further eroded trust in the bill related to the formation of the Medical Personnel Supply and Demand Estimation Committee, even though it had already passed the subcommittee for deliberation.

A leader guiding a group through a crisis must seek resolution by fostering understanding, making concessions, and finding compromise—even at the final hour.

To the stakeholders of medical reform, who are working tirelessly to avert catastrophe, I ask just one thing: Recognize that group self-interest is natural and engage in dialogue. In medical reform, the most important stakeholders are not just doctors and patients but also the government, which solely manages the medical supply system. The public, as healthcare users who inevitably face birth, aging, sickness, and death, is also a key stakeholder. When the public’s well-being is at risk, addressing their concerns must become a top priority for both politics and the media.

Compared to the power of the public, government, politics, and the media, the doctors’ group is the smallest and most powerless stakeholder. Even as the government tightens its grip with administrative orders, tax investigations, license suspensions, and even threats of “execution,” the only means of resistance available to doctors are desperate measures—strikes, resignations, and leaves of absence.

For decades, the government, as a key stakeholder, has pursued medical policies as a tool for universal welfare rather than focusing on the sustainability and soundness of healthcare. The side effects of these policies take decades to surface, making them initially popular, while policymakers bear no long-term responsibility for the consequences.

Politicians and the media, who should serve to balance the interests of stakeholders, have instead fueled public opinion against doctors—portraying them as obstructionists who resist every attempt at medical reform “for the people.” But whether it is pension reform or medical reform, if the debate centers on whose group egoism is more justified, can either side truly reach an agreement?

It is baffling that major media outlets criticize last year’s college freshmen, arguing that they benefited from increased medical school admissions and are therefore selfish for opposing medical reform. Just as their predecessors did, even this year’s high school graduates firmly reject a medical reform plan imposed without the involvement of the medical community, believing it will shape the future of Korean medicine in the wrong direction. Branding these students as cowards who fear ostracization from their seniors and peers—despite the fact that they are risking expulsion—is both contradictory and unjust.

I can state unequivocally that a critical national issue involving the interests of the entire nation is never decided purely “scientifically.” President Yoon has consistently argued that 2,000 is a scientifically determined number and that medical school admissions could be adjusted if more scientific evidence is provided. However, if it were truly scientific, a formula could be created that inputs the necessary variables and outputs the correct number of doctors as the solution, with policies following suit.

At this point, the term "scientific basis" should be discarded when estimating the "appropriate" number of medical school admissions. Instead, all parties must agree to form a consensus by negotiating and adjusting interests.

In the medical supply system, the doctors' group may be small, but it is a highly specialized and irreplaceable actor. The “science” behind the number of doctors is that an increase in their numbers also leads to an increase in total medical expenses. The group egoism of all citizens desiring unlimited medical care without opening their wallets is universal across countries.

The government, responsible for health insurance finances, understands that the OECD's highest medical utilization rate is the primary cause of rising medical costs. However, it is easier to encourage public overuse of healthcare services and then shift the resulting financial burdens onto doctors and hospitals. More importantly, this is an expression of group egoism, as the government seeks to align itself with public sentiment.

Politicians and the media, as groups seeking public support, are no different. Yet, under the guise of "the people want it," they have relegated doctors to the status of reform targets. By excluding the opinions of doctors, they have created this chaos while pushing forward medical reform policies.

Now, in the calm before the storm, stakeholders must come together, sincerely apologize for slandering one another, and pledge to no longer disregard the other party or unilaterally push forward policies. With the mindset of “taking responsibility before history,” it is time for politicians and the media to correct the imbalanced arena of debate. The government and the medical community must also declare their commitment to promoting the formation of the Medical Personnel Supply and Demand Estimation Committee and advancing medical reform through mutual agreement, exercising Solomon's wisdom to bring back medical students and trainee doctors.