You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Current controversy
UK doctors’ strikes 2023: not only justified but, arguably, supererogatory
  1. Doug McConnell1,
  2. Darren Mann2
  1. 1 Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Darren Mann, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK; darren.mann{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

The 2023 doctors’ strikes in the UK have elicited a familiar moral outcry that such strikes are morally wrong. We consider five arguments that might be thought to show doctors’ strikes are morally impermissible but show that they all fail. The most we can conclude from such arguments is that doctors’ strikes are morally permissible in a narrower range of circumstances than strikes in other sectors.

We then outline two independent but compatible justifications for doctors’ strikes, one that appeals to doctors’ interests in fair pay and working conditions and one that appeals to doctors’ duty to protect public health. We also suggest that doctors’ strikes can be supererogatory when they aim to correct a government failing in its own duty to protect public health. Finally, we assess the 2023 UK doctors’ strikes. We conclude that they are justified and there is a case for considering them supererogatory.

  • Health Workforce

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109568

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    There are no data in this work.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors contributed equally to the conception and direction of the article. DMcC took the lead in drafting the article. DMann provided critical feedback on multiple drafts. DMcC is the study guarantor.

    • Funding This study was funded by Australian Research Council (DE220101536)

    • Competing interests DMann has been a member of the British Medical Association since 1986.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    Other content recommended for you