# Doctors on strike, less deaths? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988 "2003-07-25T23:29:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/35a633/32.png) [@Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susma_Rio_Sep)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/1 "2003-07-25T23:29:24Z")
Is it true that when doctors are on strike in a community, there are less deaths in that community during the duration of the strike? I have a probable explanation: because then the doctors were not signing death certificates…? Honestly, is the conclusion to be drawn that less deaths are caused by doctors when doctors don’t work as they usually work when not on strike? Now, should we not then find out how doctors and when they do work just the same when they are on strike, and adopt this kind of a working environment for doctors; so that they would not kill as much, but on the contrary really do life-saving work and health restoration work? Susma Rio Sep ---
**Author:** ![Tradnor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cab0a1/32.png) [@Tradnor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tradnor)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/2 "2003-07-26T02:07:56Z")
A quick Google search turned up several references to [an article in the British Medical Journal](http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561): > [@](#): > > Industrial action by doctors in Israel seems to be good for their patients’ health. Death rates have dropped considerably in most of the country since physicians in public hospitals implemented a programme of sanctions three months ago, according to a survey of burial societies. The letters linked toward the bottom of the page list other incidents. The letter writers and the web sites mentioning this article all seem to be followers of chiropractics or alternative medicine, so I would be interested in seeing what less biased sources have to say on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/3 "2003-07-26T02:57:19Z")
I can think of one other obvious reason for this to b true. It’s so obvious that I susect the statement is true without any evidence. A lot of surgery is non-emergency. That is not to say non-essential. It’s just surgery for things like cancer or gallstones or separating conjoined twins that can be done any time in the next 6 months. Non-emergency does not mean non-life threatening. Operating on a brain tumour or separating conjoined twins is life threatening. When doctors are on strike presumably this surgery isn’t being done. As a result less lives are lost during surgery, which means les lives lost overall. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/4 "2003-07-26T03:11:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > \*\*When doctors are on strike presumably this surgery isn’t being done. As a result less lives are lost during surgery, which means les lives lost overall. \*\* Good point but one that should be washed out in the statistics given a large enough timespan. If doctors strike for a week then this might be the cause but if they were on strike for 6 months then those brain tumors and such should catch-up with their victims. In short this would indicate a statistical hiccup but nothing that tells you anything useful as regards doctors being an overall detriment to health rather than an aid to it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/5 "2003-07-26T03:21:47Z")
How long would they need to be on strike? What is the average life expectancy of a person with gallstones, or conjoined twins, or even the number of very slow growing/non-malignant tumour operations? I’m guessing that the majority of non-emergency modern surgical procedures would not result in death in under 5 years. Think of all the hip replacements, nose jobs, non-emergency tonsilectomies, tubal ligations etc. 5 years is a damn long strike. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctors-on-strike-less-deaths/190988/6 "2003-07-26T04:18:06Z")
Obviously no _all_ doctors were on strike. It’s possible that the doctors on strike were the older, higher-paid ones; the younger doctors with more up-to-date training may have better luck. Or it could be that the cancellation of outpatient and elective procedures allowed more resources to be used for emeregency care. Is it possible that there was also a backlog of bodies in the morgue waiting for autopsies and paperwork? The cited reference is based on surveys of burial services.