The government is calling for trainee doctors to return to hospitals and has pulled out the card of the "Special Act on the Handling of Medical Accidents," a long-cherished desire in the medical community. The law exempts and reduces criminal penalties and compensation burdens for insured doctors who injure patients due to negligence during medical treatment, but patient groups are strongly opposed. It is important not to treat something with such a high impact on patients as a means to deal with the urgent problem.

According to the draft of the special act released by the government on February 27, if a doctor subscribes to liability insurance and deduction, investigative agencies will not be able to prosecute if a patient does not want to punish the doctor if the doctor negligently injures the patient in the course of any medical procedure, including cosmetology and plastic surgery. In addition, if a doctor subscribes to liability insurance and deduction and comprehensive insurance and deduction, a patient cannot file a prosecution even if he or she claims to have been injured due to medical negligence. In the case of essential medical treatment, prosecution is not possible even if a patient is seriously injured, but it is possible if the patient dies, but the sentence is reduced.

The draft is "unprecedented in any other country," as Minister of Health and Welfare Cho Kyu-hong put it. There is even a possibility that it is unconstitutional to exempt punishment based on whether a doctor has insurance. Cho presented the law as a carrot to expand the number of medical students, saying, "I hope trainee doctors understand the government's sincerity." In contrast, patients who are underprivileged in medical care are put on the back burner in the draft.

The burden of proving medical malpractice is left to patients. Victims of medical accidents who find it difficult to prove causation due to information asymmetry are still forced to put their livelihoods on hold and cling to lawsuits without any promises. In such a situation, exempting doctors from criminal penalties would exacerbate the suffering of patients, who are the most vulnerable in medical disputes. While acknowledging the need to discuss reducing the burden of punishment for unavoidable medical errors, the law should not become a guarantee of impunity for medical malpractice.

The government is easily wielding sensitive medical issues with carrots and hard-line measures, taking advantage of the chaos caused by the doctor's strike. Examples include the sudden expansion of non-face-to-face medical treatment, which has been debated and opposed for more than a decade, without a public debate process, and the sudden permission to the pilot project which allows "PA nurses" to practice medicine for a limited time after the presidential veto of the nursing law. In the meantime, oriental doctors also demanded the expansion of the scope of work, saying, "30,000 oriental doctors are ready to fill the gap in medical treatment." Both the government and the Korea Medical Association should treat the country’s healthcare system as a centennial system that should be co-created with medical consumers. The government should keep in mind that rushing to prescribe quick fixes can have unimaginable side effects.