A Romanian doctor settled in Germany strongly criticizes the idea reintroduced by Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan regarding the obligation for graduates of Medicine trained with public funds to work for a few years in Romania.
Anesthesiologist Iuliu Torje argues that such a measure would represent „the symptom of a state that no longer knows how to convince and tries to constrain.”
In a message posted on Facebook, the doctor states that the discussion about obligation actually masks a structural failure of the state. "The state offers → the professional stays. The state fails → the professional leaves," he summarizes, arguing that the relationship between the state and the doctor should function as a balanced contract, not as a unilateral imposition.
Torje admits that the state can impose obligations, but only under the conditions of a fair offer for professionals. "In a state of law, obligation is inseparable from offer," the doctor points out, considering that the discussed proposal would mean "the unilateral rupture of this contract": the state does not fulfill its part, but the doctor would remain constrained.
"The doctor is not the property of the state," he emphasizes, listing a series of conditions that, in his opinion, should be met before discussing obligation: fair salaries, equitable payment for shifts, functional hospitals, real access to education, promotion based on merit, and the elimination of "medical feudalism."
In the absence of these reforms, Torje says, any attempt to legislate the stay of graduates in the country would be "an acknowledgment of the state's failure, not a solution." The doctor also rejects the idea that his departure equates to abandonment: "And yes, I left. But I did not abandon Romania. Romania abandoned its doctors long before."
His statements come after Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan reiterated on Tuesday the idea that doctors who benefit from studies on a budget and residency paid by the state should have an obligation to the country and work "at least a few years" in Romania. The topic has sparked strong reactions in the public space, bringing back the old debate about the "linking to the land" of doctors trained with public funds and about the limits of state intervention in a liberal profession.