Doctors hold the line

The partial mobilization of medical workers is supported by the majority of healthcare professionals – but on the condition that doctors with relevant work experience will be called in first. This was shown by a survey of the Doctor’s Handbook application team, in which more than 3 thousand medical workers participated – both civilian hospitals and institutions of the Ministry of Defense. At the same time, 70% of ordinary and 43.5% of military doctors believe that the partial mobilization of doctors will harm public health, as it will “significantly aggravate the problem of staff shortages.” The survey showed that only 1% of civilian doctors in Russia have experience of participating in hostilities.

The Doctor’s Handbook mobile application is a popular service for physicians that optimizes the work of specialists and helps them make clinical decisions. It unites more than 915 thousand users; the creators of the application regularly conduct various surveys on professional topics among them. This time they asked about their attitude to participation in partial mobilization, which President Vladimir Putin had previously announced. 3,318 people took part in the survey, of which 83% are doctors, and 17% are paramedical personnel. Most of the respondents work in civil medicine; only 3.4% of the surveyed physicians work in military units, military hospitals, military registration and enlistment offices.

According to the results of the study, among civilian specialists, 18.1% of physicians consider themselves fully fit for partial mobilization. Another 16.5% admitted that they are of limited fit, 6.6% are sure that they do not pass due to health, and 9.2% – due to age. About 19% believe that they are not subject to conscription due to their specialty. However, the majority (31%) answered that they did not know if they were subject to partial mobilization, because they did not understand its criteria.

Among military doctors, 44.4% called themselves completely fit. 5.2% are partially fit, 4.3% do not pass for health reasons, and 12.2% for age. Because of their specialty, 21.7 percent do not fall under mobilization, and 12.2 percent do not know if they do.

The main question – about supporting the partial mobilization of health workers – was unequivocally positively answered by 14.7% of the civilian doctors surveyed. Another 52.3% generally support conscription, but believe that only those who have a military specialty and relevant experience should be mobilized. At the same time, only 1% of the surveyed civilian doctors have experience of participating in hostilities; another 9% reported having served in the military. 24.9% of respondents do not support mobilization at all.

Military doctors and paramedical staff are more unconditionally supportive of mobilization (33%) and less likely than civilians to say that only those who have a military specialty and relevant experience should be mobilized (48%). 20% of all surveyed employees of hospitals and military units have combat experience. 34.8% have served in the army, 45.2% have no combat experience.

Answering the question about the reasons for supporting mobilization, civilian doctors most often indicated that military doctors need the help of their colleagues (39.9% think so). The second most popular option is “I think it is a civic duty” (23.1%). Another 19.4% of medical workers support mobilization because they consider it necessary to preserve Russia’s sovereignty. It should be noted that almost half (48.4%) of military medics think so. Approximately the same number of employees of civilian hospitals and hospitals (4% and 5%, respectively) consider mobilization an opportunity to gain new experience, earn and receive benefits, try themselves as a military doctor, and help military personnel. Among the civilian specialists interviewed, eight people – doctors and one representative of the paramedical staff (0.4%) – said that in any case they planned to go to serve in the liberated territories. Another four doctors (0.2%) consider participation in a special military operation (SVO) as an opportunity to change jobs.

Opponents of mobilization surveyed believe that the guarantees that the state now gives to those called up will not be fulfilled (21.6% and 30%). They also think that a civilian doctor does not have enough skills to work in combat conditions (15%, the question was asked only to civilians). Finally, they fear that if doctors are called in, there will be no one to treat the population (7.9% and 15.4%). Volunteers (49.2% of the surveyed civilian and 46.1% of military doctors believe that only those who expressed such a desire should be sent to the front) could be additionally motivated by decent pay for service, benefits upon return (this is what 43% of civilians and 49 .6% of military specialists), insurance guarantees in case of harm to health or death (28% and 22.6%), full write-off or exemption from credit debts, including mortgages and consumer loans (26% and 26.9%), guarantees of extraordinary enrollment of children in universities for budget places (3% and 0.9%).

Military medics are more confident that their civilian counterparts are competent enough to work in the military field: 8% agree with this completely, and 60% believe that civilians will be ready after a young fighter course and a short specialized medical training. Among medical workers in conventional hospitals, only 4% believe that civilian doctors can work in combat conditions, 29% believe that they will be helped to prepare for a young fighter course and a short additional medical training.

70% of civilian and 43.5% of military doctors believe that partial mobilization will harm civilian health care, as it will “significantly exacerbate the problem of staff shortages.” 11% and 13% believe that the situation will negatively affect health care financing. However, 8% of those surveyed among civilians and 23.5% among the military believe that the qualifications of doctors after such an experience will only improve, and 11% and 20% that mobilization will have little effect due to existing problems in healthcare.

The doctors were also asked how their teams feel about the decision on partial mobilization. It turned out that only 7.4% of civilian colleagues support the draft and are ready to go, while 1.7% have “many” already in the NWO zone. Among the military, the percentage of such answers is expectedly higher – 19.1% are familiar with people who are ready to go, 21.8% know those who are already in Donbass. Another 10.8% of civilian and 12.2% of military doctors know that their colleagues have a positive attitude towards mobilization, but they themselves are not ready to participate in the SVO. Approximately the same percentage of respondents in both groups (25.2% and 23.5%) believe that their colleagues have not decided. The rest of the civilians – 54.9% – admitted that in the team they have a negative attitude towards the need for mobilization, as they are afraid for their lives and health (36.7%) or consider this decision to be wrong in principle (18.2%). Only 23.4% of military doctors are aware of the negative attitude of other medical workers towards mobilization.

To condemn those colleagues who evade or plan to evade mobilization, 63% of civilian and 60% of military doctors will not, because they believe that this is “not their business.” 14% of civilians and only 3.5% of the military have a positive attitude towards draft dodgers, while 23% and 36.5% have a negative attitude.

Earlier, the head of the State Duma Committee on Health Protection, Dmitry Khubezov, explained that it is planned to attract 300 medical workers to participate in the SVO. His deputy, Badma Bashankayev, stated that no more than 3,000 doctors could be required in total. According to Mr. Khubezov, male paramedics, anesthesiologists-resuscitators, traumatologists, orthopedists with experience in a combat zone or in the system of disaster medicine have priority in the call. At the same time, he acknowledged that dozens of reports about “excesses at the local level” are being received on the State Duma hotline. After analyzing the situation with the participation of lawyers, many cases of mobilization of doctors are recognized as unfounded, said Badma Bashankaev. In particular, after a public outcry, the appeal of a 59-year-old surgeon from Asbest, Viktor Dyachka, who, according to his daughter, suffers from a chronic kidney disease, previously had cancer and cannot see in one eye, was recognized as erroneous.

The President of the League for the Defense of Doctors, Semyon Galperin, draws attention to another “unpleasant” problem: cases of conscription of medical workers as ordinary military personnel. “It should not be like this at all, this is a waste of human resources,” Mr. Galperin comments. Konstantin Khomanov, the founder of the Doctor’s Handbook mobile application, also speaks about the need for “competent use of medical resources”.

Alexei Kurinny, deputy chairman of the State Duma committee on health protection, agrees that the mobilization caused “ambiguous reactions” including the medical community. Call, according to him, “yet not massively” in certain specialties: anesthesiologists, resuscitators, forensic experts, operating nurses, paramedics. He believes that brigades for work in the combat zone should first of all be formed from army medicine workers. Civilian doctors will be able to replace them in hospitals and rear bases. “As for the shortage of these specialties in the “citizen” – yes, it exists. There is a particular shortage of resuscitators and anesthesiologists. Of course, somewhere their remaining colleagues will have to work in a more intensive mode, ”concludes Mr. Kurinny.

Natalia Kostarnova