The world approves the constraint: 60 % believe doctors should be required to set up where there is a shortage, against 40 % opposed and no undecided voters.
Men and women vote the same way, with a small gap, women being slightly more supportive. Gender is not this round's fault line.
Age is more so: the over-65s and the 45-54s unanimously support the obligation, the 55-64s reject it just as unanimously, and the 18-24s split exactly in two.
The debate rests on a comparison that appears in both supportive contributions: teachers do not choose their posting after qualifying, so why should doctors? The underlying argument is access to care, a vital profession and medical deserts judged scandalous.
But the supportive camp sets the limit of constraint itself. The same voice adds that obliging will not be enough: you also have to attract, through financial support and premises, as some regions already do.
The thread's only objection shifts the problem and comes as a reply: what if young doctors' supposed pickiness were merely a symptom of an overall shortage of practitioners? Wanting liveable hours and holidays is hardly abnormal. The disagreement is therefore less about the obligation than about the diagnosis: constrain a profession, or admit there are too few of them.