[Reporter's Notebook] Regional trauma centers remain mere ‘political symbols'

Regional trauma centers are where medical professionals race against time to save patients with severe injuries. Today, 17 such centers operate nationwide, aiming to treat life-threatening trauma cases from accidents and disasters within the crucial golden hour.

The catalyst for their establishment was the dedication of Dr. Lee Cook-jong, then a professor of trauma surgery at Ajou University Hospital (now head of the Armed Forces War College Hospital). He famously saved the life of Captain Seok Hae-gyun, the “Hero of the Gulf of Aden,” who was shot by Somali pirates in 2011. The original plan envisioned dividing the country into five or six regions and concentrating manpower and resources on building fully functional trauma centers in each region.

However, political considerations distorted this vision. As politicians sought to win favor with local constituencies, the number of regional trauma centers ballooned to 17. The result is a fragmented and dysfunctional system. Only four of these centers operate “properly.” Despite the increased number, a shortage of trauma anesthesiologists and other essential personnel --coupled with scattered funding -- has created a situation where “the more patients you save, the more money you lose.”

To address this, experts stress the need to reorganize the system with a focus on staffing trauma anesthesiologists at these centers. Physicians argue that trauma centers must be restructured strategically, based on the available resources across the country. They emphasize the need to revisit the original vision and rebuild “proper trauma centers.”

The political arena has also begun to acknowledge this issue. Recently, Lee Joon-seok, a presidential candidate from the New Reform Party, pledged to consolidate the current trauma centers into five or six regional hubs and implement a “national full responsibility system,” whereby the government would oversee everything from staffing and operations to legal accountability.

Though the pledge came ahead of the June 3 presidential election -- and its future remains uncertain -- there is growing consensus in the medical community that the issue must be addressed. Regardless of the election’s outcome, this conversation should continue under the next administration.

Politics should serve the public by ensuring that regional trauma centers function as vital safety nets, not symbolic projects.

The political class must also reflect on the current state of regional trauma centers. All stakeholders should confront the consequences of ineffective and populist policymaking.

As healthcare pledges flood the presidential race, we must ask: are these promises truly about protecting lives -- or simply about winning votes?