Article Text
Abstract
Medical ethics play a fundamental role in global healthcare, ensuring that patients receive care marked by dignity, compassion and fairness. Vietnam’s 12 ethical principles, codified in 1996, integrate universal ethical standards with local sociocultural and ideological traditions, particularly emphasising emotional sacrifice, holistic care and social responsibility. While these principles promote professional excellence and community service, this essay argues that their application within Vietnam’s under-resourced healthcare system has unintended consequences for physician well-being. An analysis of key domains—including emotional burden from holistic care expectations, administrative and educational overload, emergency care pressures and end-of-life responsibilities—reveals how systemic shortcomings intensify professional strain. Evidence from Vietnam and international comparisons shows that without structured delegation of non-clinical duties, protected working conditions and integrated palliative care systems, physicians face escalating risks of emotional exhaustion, moral injury and career attrition. Unlike healthcare models in developed countries, where ethical standards are balanced by institutional safeguards, Vietnam’s framework demands near-unlimited commitment without corresponding systemic support. Unless ethical expectations are recalibrated and support structures are modernised, Vietnam’s medical ethics, though noble in aspiration, risk undermining the very sustainability of its healthcare workforce. This essay highlights the need for urgent reform to align Vietnam’s ethical ideals with contemporary clinical realities, ensuring that both patient-centred care and physician resilience are protected.
- Quality of Health Care
- Ethics
- Medical Errors
- Health Workforce
- Ethics- Medical
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors NLKN conceptualised the manuscript, conducted the literature review and led the drafting process. TTHL contributed to comparative policy analysis, references and manuscript structuring. DMP supported data interpretation, reform proposals and final editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. NLKN is the guarantor of this article and takes full responsibility for the overall content.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.