Abstract
Though physicians strike provides an opportunity to generate more knowledge about the process in which legitimacy of an organization can be restored, it meets with a great deal of resistance not only by the public but from within the medical profession. This paper critically examines the legitimacy of strike by medical doctors heretofore referred to as physicians. Though critically reflecting on strikes of physicians in general, the paper makes more emphasis on Africa where physician strikes are rampant. More importantly, the paper argues that strike implies a failure for everyone in the organization (including the strikers themselves), not only the responsible government or authority. This is because when a strike occurs, an organization/fraternity is subjected to questions, scrutiny and slander. It becomes difficult to decouple what is said, decided and done. Traditionally, all medical fraternities the world-over are committed to acting comfortably to external demands-guaranteeing the patients' lives and public health. By paying attention to external reactions, the medical fraternity adapts and learns what ought and should be done so that it is never again caught in the same messy. At the same time, the fraternity prepares itself for the future strikes. When the fraternity and those outside consider it is doing up to the external expectations, its lost legitimacy is restored. When legitimacy is restored, external pressure like once disturbed water returns to normal.
Highlights
While there is monumental literature on pro-strike arguments on the one hand and con- strike arguments on the other, there is patchy literature that examines the nexus between the preservation of medical professionalism through African traditional beliefs/practices and the safeguard of human rights of the ordinary patients against physician strike actions
Scientists such as physicians inclined to dealing with factual judgments have failed to convincingly address the issue of strike using the ‘old version’ of the Hippocratic Oath which is the bedrock of the medical profession the world over
Whilst the argument based on the ‘new version’ of the Hippocratic Oath, argument from the principle of beneficence, argument from utilitarianism, and argument from African communalism are philosophically plausible as has been demonstrated by this work, it is paramount to reiterate that the question of physician strike is too complex to be epitomized in a word
Summary
While there is monumental literature on pro-strike arguments on the one hand and con- strike arguments on the other, there is patchy literature that examines the nexus between the preservation of medical professionalism through African traditional beliefs/practices and the safeguard of human rights of the ordinary patients against physician strike actions. It is surprising and disturbing that Nozick strongly believes that if government satisfies the needs and interests of physicians, it is acting justly to all citizens, even the patients and the public in general In this light, the paper contends that physicians strike is never morally good and justifiable on the basis of Nozick’s argument. Many of these strikes have caused lasting damage from which health systems have struggled to get over; have been very costly (both in the short and long term); and have not achieved what the management appear to have wanted It can be argued on the basis of utilitarianism that physicians strike like that of the army, police and prison officers has far reaching consequences to the country in question; may result in violation of human rights and looting of public ‘goods’. The values of individuals and individual rights, for example, are normally overridden by the values and rights of the community as a whole (to which the individual belongs)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
