Should ethics committees be concerned with the ratio of medical students who specialize and those who don’t?

It is one thing for “ethics committees” to construct guidelines concerning what is permissible or not permissible in healthcare, but one of the most critical issues in healthcare is accessibility to service. Several years ago, a medical expert commented on why he thought universal healthcare works well in France. He said that it is because 70% of French doctors are General Practitioners and only 30% are specialists. In America it is the opposite. In other words, healthcare is only as good as its accessibility to preventative care rather than acute care. In addition, healthcare is even less accessible in many rural areas such as Appalachia. Should ethics committees be concerned with the ratio of medical students who specialize and those who don’t? Should ethics committees offer special financial assistance to those who will designate a number of years of service in remote areas? Should ethics committees have a representative from underserved areas and populations? For example, a recent national news story focused on a particular area of Oklahoma where a small hospital was recently closed. It was reported that it would take at least an hour for help to arrive in the form of medical service. More and more community hospitals have been closing throughout the nation. Not only preventive care but acute care has been compromised, particularly in rural areas. Use the texts to support your reflection on this. This response should be a minimum of 300 words in length (that’s usually about 1 page, double-spaced, 12 pt font; there is no maximum length) and cite at least one of the required readings.