Abstract

BackgroundDoctor and healthcare worker (HCW) strikes are a global phenomenon with the potential to negatively impact on the quality of healthcare services and the doctor-patient relationship. Strikes are a legitimate deadlock breaking mechanism employed when labour negotiations have reached an impasse during collective bargaining. Striking doctors usually have a moral dilemma between adherence to the Hippocratic tenets of the medical profession and fiduciary obligation to patients. In such circumstances the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, justice and beneficence all come into conflict, whereby doctors struggle with their role as ordinary employees who are rightfully entitled to a just wage for just work versus their moral obligations to patients and society.DiscussionIt has been argued that to deny any group of workers, including "essential workers" the right to strike is akin to enslavement which is ethically and morally indefensible. While HCW strikes occur globally, the impact appears more severe in developing countries challenged by poorer socio-economic circumstances, embedded infrastructural deficiencies, and lack of viable alternative means of obtaining healthcare. These communities appear to satisfy the criteria for vulnerability and may be deserving of special ethical consideration when doctor and HCW strikes are contemplated.SummaryThe right to strike is considered a fundamental right whose derogation would be inimical to the proper functioning of employer/employee collective bargaining in democratic societies. Motivations for HCW strikes include the natural pressure to fulfil human needs and the paradigm shift in modern medical practice, from self-employment and benevolent paternalism, to managed healthcare and consumer rights. Minimizing the incidence and impact of HCW strikes will require an ethical approach from all stakeholders, and recognition that all parties have an equal moral obligation to serve the best interests of society. Employers should implement legitimate collective bargaining agreements in a timely manner and high-handed actions such as mass-firing of striking HCWs, or unjustifiable disciplinary action by regulators should be avoided. Minimum service level agreements should be implemented to mitigate the impact of HCW strikes on indigent populations. Striking employees including HCWs should also desist from making unrealistic wage demands which could bankrupt governments/employers or hamper provision of other equally important social services to the general population.

Highlights

  • Doctor and healthcare worker (HCW) strikes are a global phenomenon with the potential to negatively impact on the quality of healthcare services and the doctor-patient relationship

  • Minimizing the incidence and impact of HCW strikes will require an ethical approach from all stakeholders, and recognition that all parties have an equal moral obligation to serve the best interests of society

  • Minimum service level agreements should be implemented to mitigate the impact of HCW strikes on indigent populations

Read more

Summary

Discussion

Why do workers go on strike generally? Strikes are a strategy used by an employee or group of employees in an attempt to force an employer to meet their demands whether economic or otherwise [2,4,41]. Employers, employees and regulatory authorities must be ethical in their approach to resolving labour disputes by doctors and HCWs, especially in an environment already plagued by poor quality of healthcare service delivery, poor health outcomes and low confidence in the healthcare infrastructure and public services [19,20,27,55,68] Summary This analysis shows that the right to strike is so important to the functioning of modern democratic societies that its suppression would be unjustified. Governments as employers should resist the urge to arbitrarily designate certain groups as “essential services”, outside of established international law, in order to deny such employee groups the right to strike Arbitrary actions such as mass firing of striking doctors or threats of unjustifiable disciplinary action by regulatory authorities, will not encourage speedy resolution of HCWs, and may lead to undesirable consequences such as brain drain. Authors’ contributions Author conducted all the research and wrote the manuscript

Background
Rennie S
16. Stafford N
24. IOL News
Findings
30. Macklin R
43. Jacobs AJM
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call