Is it ethical for doctors to strike? If so, under what conditions?

Where answers to this question lose points

Our scorer marks every answer on three parts. For each of the 86 applicants who finished this question on Confetto, we took their first scored answer and counted the part that scored lowest.

• Structure: a clear order and a clear point36 of 86
• Content: covering what the question needs23 of 86

Confetto data as of November 8, 2026. A part is shown only when 20 or more applicants share it. Answers where two parts tied are not counted toward either. We never show anyone's answers or details.

What this question tests

• Ethics
• Professionalism
• Health policy

How to structure your answer

1. What it's about (15 seconds). The question asks whether doctors’ rights as workers can justify strikes despite their duty to protect patients, affecting doctors, patients, and healthcare services. The answer frames this as a balance between collective action and the special responsibility attached to caring for human life.
2. Both sides (40 seconds). The case against striking is that interrupting medical services risks patient harm and conflicts with doctors’ duty of care. The case for striking is that dangerous staffing levels, burnout, and unsustainable working hours also harm patients, so short-term disruption may help prevent longer-term damage.
3. Your position (20 seconds). The answer supports doctors striking only over serious systemic problems, after other negotiation routes have been exhausted and adequate notice has been given. Its main reason is that collective action can support safer care, provided emergency services, critical care, and essential treatments remain protected.
4. Its downside (15 seconds). The answer recognizes that even a justified strike disrupts care and places an unusually heavy ethical burden on doctors because patients depend on them. It would soften that cost through advance notice, rotating skeleton crews, and continued emergency, critical care, and chemotherapy coverage.
5. What would change it (10 seconds). The answer does not explicitly name a fact that would change its position, but its conditions imply that inability to maintain essential care would remove its support. Evidence that patients would face immediate harm despite planned coverage would therefore undermine the justification for that strike.
6. Common pitfalls. A flat yes or no before weighing both sides, or a one-sided defense of workers’ rights that ignores patient safety, would weaken this answer. So would supporting strikes without clear conditions on essential coverage, exhausted negotiations, and the seriousness of the underlying problem.

Example answer from Confetto

Example answer from Confetto. Not a real applicant's answer.

I believe the ethics of doctors striking requires carefully balancing their rights as workers with their fundamental duty to patient care. As healthcare providers, we take an oath to "first, do no harm," which makes any interruption of medical services ethically complex.

In my view, doctors can ethically strike under specific conditions that prioritize patient safety. I believe essential and emergency services must be maintained, with strategies like rotating skeleton crews ensuring no patient faces immediate harm. For instance, if I were involved in organizing a strike, I would advocate for continued coverage of emergency departments, critical care units, and ongoing essential treatments like chemotherapy.

That said, I recognize that systemic healthcare issues affecting working conditions can ultimately harm patient care through physician burnout, medical errors, and staff shortages. When I consider scenarios where doctors have struck - like in the UK's junior doctor strikes - it's often about sustainable working hours and safe staffing levels that directly impact patient safety. In these cases, short-term disruption might prevent longer-term harm to both healthcare workers and patients.

However, I feel strongly that strikes should only occur after exhausting other avenues of negotiation and with adequate notice to allow hospitals to prepare. The threshold for striking should be serious systemic issues rather than minor grievances. For example, I would support strike action over dangerous understaffing but not over minor scheduling inconveniences.

Ultimately, while I believe doctors have the right to strike, this right carries a heavier ethical burden than in other professions due to our unique responsibility for human life. Any strike action must be carefully structured to protect vulnerable patients while still effectively advocating for necessary changes that benefit both healthcare workers and the patients they serve.

Use it for its structure. Interviewers can tell a memorized script, so tell your own story.

Keep going

• You are doing your rotations during medical school, and you see one of your closest friends in medical school cover up a medical error they made with a patient. What do you do?
• Some argue that physicians, given their position in society, have a duty to be role models for healthy living. Do you agree or disagree?
• In response to the opioid crisis, some Canadian cities have implemented supervised injection sites. Discuss the ethical and societal considerations of providing such services. Do you believe supervised injection sites are an effective harm reduction strategy? Why or why not?
• Medical school interview questions by type
• The full interview question bank