[Law & Story] Should a National Referendum Be Held on Increasing Medical School Admissions?

Court's 'Dismissal' Is in Effect a Substantive Ruling
KMA Crosses the Line with Personal Attacks on Judges
Doctors Must Return as Soon as Possible for Patients

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Reporter

The intense standoff between the government and the medical community over the increase in medical school admissions shows no sign of ending. The confirmation of next year's college entrance exam implementation plan is just around the corner, and concerns about the unprecedented 'mass retention of medical students' and 'lack of specialists' are becoming a reality. Of course, the greatest victims at this moment are the patients and their families who are anxiously waiting, unable to receive timely surgeries or treatments.

In a rule-of-law country where physical force is prohibited, conflicts between two parties with differing interests are ultimately resolved through the judiciary. This is stipulated by the constitution amended through a national referendum and laws enacted by lawmakers elected by the people. No matter how fiercely they have clashed, once a court's final ruling is issued, the parties must accept and comply with the outcome. It is the minimum rule agreed upon to maintain the nation and society.

In this regard, the recent behavior shown by the medical community?especially by Lim Hyun-taek, president of the Korean Medical Association representing doctors, and lawyer Lee Byung-chul, who is handling the litigation?has crossed the line by not only rejecting the court's ruling but also personally attacking judges who ruled unfavorably and even raising conspiracy theories.

If the court's 'dismissal' decisions on the government's request to suspend the increase in medical school admissions were formal judgments denying the applicant's standing, the recent 'rejection' decision by the Seoul High Court is practically close to a substantive judgment.

First, the court judged that the Minister of Education's disposition to set medical school admission quotas was directed at university presidents as the opposing party, so medical school professors or residents are considered 'third parties' without standing to challenge the disposition. While medical students, whose right to learn could be infringed, are recognized as having standing to request suspension, the judiciary concluded that it is necessary to protect the public interest by partially sacrificing their rights for the sake of 'medical reform through increasing medical school admissions.'

The court stated, "Currently, our country faces significant difficulties in essential and regional medical care due to inadequate supply and demand of doctors where needed. It is difficult to conclude that this situation can be easily resolved merely by reallocating the current medical workforce, and at least the necessity to increase medical school admissions as a foundation or premise for restoring and improving essential and regional medical care cannot be denied."

This High Court decision is unlikely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, and although there are some differences in issues and judgment criteria, the prevailing view in the legal community is that the outcome of the substantive lawsuit will not differ significantly.

Above all, the majority of the public sympathizes with the necessity of increasing medical school admissions. The approval rate for increasing medical school admissions by 2,000, which was in the low 70% range, has recently risen to nearly 80%. Yet, the medical community's continued demands for 'complete cancellation' or 'reexamination from scratch' and refusal to engage in dialogue with the government are difficult to avoid being criticized as collective selfishness.

There is sympathy for concerns that this increase in medical school admissions could raise health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket expenses, increasing the burden on the public, and that universities suddenly increasing their quotas may struggle to provide adequate education, potentially lowering the overall quality of doctors. However, can the government continue to neglect the shortage of doctors as it is?

I recall when the bar exam was abolished and the law school system (Law School) was introduced, lawyers, law professors, and law students nationwide held pickets and engaged in collective protests. At that time, concerns were raised about law schools, especially the educational limitations of smaller universities and the decline in the quality of lawyers. Although some side effects occurred, it is undeniable that the positive aspects, such as improved access to legal services, far outweigh the harm to the public caused by the increased number of lawyers.

Article 72 of the Constitution stipulates that "The President may submit important policies concerning diplomacy, national defense, unification, and other matters of national security to a national referendum when deemed necessary." This provision was changed from the 1980 constitutional amendment, which stated, "The President may submit important national policies to a national referendum when deemed necessary." While it is questionable whether the issue of increasing medical school admissions can be submitted to a national referendum at this time, if the current situation continues and the people's right to life is seriously infringed, perhaps a national referendum should be held.

"I solemnly pledge to dedicate my life to the service of humanity. I will consider the health of my patients as my highest priority." This is part of the 1948 Declaration of Geneva, a modernization of the Hippocratic Oath by the World Medical Association. Above all, we hope that doctors will return to hospitals and universities as soon as possible for the sake of patients waiting for treatment.