On March 17, 2025, the tension between medical professors and resident doctors escalated at Seoul National University as Park Dan, head of the Korean Medical Association's Emergency Response Committee, vehemently criticized four professors for their dismissive statements toward medical students. This confrontation highlights the growing rift within the medical community, revolving around concerns of exploitation and inadequate working conditions for medical residents.
Park's remarks came after professors including Ha Eun-jin, Oh Joo-hwan, Han Se-won, and Kang Hee-kyung expressed their frustrations over the students' apparent reluctance to return to classes without providing effective solutions for the medical system's improvement. They characterized the students' approach as "unjust" and stressed the need for cooperation. Yet, Park retorted, stating these professors do not deserve the title, questioning their capability and ethical standing.
On his social media platform, Park underscored his disagreement, asserting, "These professors do not have the qualifications to be called professors. Let's be honest. Aren't emergency room procedures, intravenous injections, and suturing skills taught only to medical professionals?" His challenge questioned the professors' claims about teaching fundamental medical skills, indicating he had not received formal training from nursing staff or emergency technicians.
Adding to the controversy, Park brought attention to the harsh realities faced by medical residents. He criticized the idea of extending their working hours from the current limits to 80 or even 140 hours per week, arguing, "Should we advocate for such extreme hours simply because the national economic growth rate has dwindled to 1%? Should the loss of life due to overwork be labeled merely as collateral damage for the sake of economic upturn?" This point struck at the heart of the issue, reflecting widespread concerns about the mental and physical toll on those within the medical profession.
Contrary to the professors' stance, which emphasized the need for responsibility among medical students, Park pointed out their failure to address the systemic problems within the training environment. He called for the establishment of a professor evaluation system to guarantee the proper supervision of resident doctors' education and training. "Professors who disregard their teaching duties are nothing but hired hands collecting salaries without fulfilling their responsibilities," he stated.
The debate intensified as the Future Medical Forum, another medical organization, backed Park's critiques. They issued their own statement demanding accountability from the professors. Their messages highlighted the lack of humility and commitment showed by the professors toward their students and colleagues. They stated, "There is nothing but arrogance and orders within their statements. They need to retract their words and apologize publicly."
This growing friction has stirred significant public response, as many within the medical field feel the pressure to adapt to changing healthcare dynamics. Some hardliners among professors reportedly seek more stringent measures, including reducing medical school enrollment capacities for upcoming years, intensifying calls for students to return under less-than-ideal conditions.
Indeed, the entire episode sheds light on the broader challenges the medical profession faces. Children and young residents bear the brunt of systemic issues as they seek to uphold their education and training against the backdrop of crippling workloads and institutional neglect.
Park concluded his arguments by emphasizing the necessity for academic leaders to engage earnestly with their students' struggles rather than deflect blame. He remarked, "The most pressing issue within university hospitals is the hierarchical delegation of labor and accountability. Medical leaders need to recognize the consequences of burdening slights upon the next generation of healthcare providers." With these strong words, he stressed the pivotal role of dialogue and collaboration needed among medical faculties and their students for fostering improvement.
On the same token, the educational structure within medical institutions has come under scrutiny following these events. Many advocate for reforms within medical training methodologies, demanding enhanced support and structures to adequately prepare young doctors.
The situation remains fluid as discussions continue and stakeholders respond. The discussions surrounding this conflict clearly show both parties' need for mutual recognition and respect as they navigate the intricacies of the medical training system. Whether this will lead to meaningful changes or just more friction remains to be seen.
