As mentioned before, global health education and activism represent opportunities for transformative learning: Expanding one’s horizon, developing language skills and cultural sensitivity, uncovering blind spots, and personally experiencing the various aspects of the existing and arising global health challenges. Immersion and active involvement in this field can influence attitudes and sensitivity in future medical practice and shape career choices [
32]. For example, medical school graduates in the US who participated in global health electives during their studies were more likely to engage in careers with underserved populations [
33]. Global health education also leads to favorable attitudes towards marginalized local patient populations [
34]. International students’ organizations have been shown to be innovators, filling the gaps in fields such as global surgery [
35] or publishing global health performance metrics for universities in the USA, UK, Germany, and Canada [
36]. However, there are few global health education programs in other regions, e.g., Asia, Oceania, or South America [
37,
38]. Moreover, when it comes to research opportunities, scholars and researchers from low-resource settings face many constraints: Publication fees, inequitable research partnerships with researchers of high-resource settings, discordance in research priorities, lack of funding for research relevant to their context [
39]. These ingrained prejudicial practices should be dismantled, while resource-sharing capacities should be strengthened. We need fair, reciprocal, and equitable partnerships for young scholars regardless of their resources. For global surgery, hospital work needs flexibility and, in order for global health and its branches to unfold and reach their full potential, time and energy are required. This mostly exceeds an out-of-hours “leisure” commitment and, as a result, dedicated residency programs have emerged [
40].
A significant percentage of medical students spend part of their studies abroad and want to include these experiences into their training [
41]. And while global mobility has been pushed through the European Erasmus program and International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations programs, global health education is still lacking in the medical curricula [
42]. Instead of singular short-term international experiences that can lead to frustration, exploitation, unintended negative consequences among local communities, traumatization, and the so-called “voluntourism,” long-term educational opportunities and creation of networks that nurture transformative and sustainable learning are needed. Adequate preparation and debriefing increase self-reflectivity and sensitize students for the importance of “first do no harm” [
43].
Lack of mobility, language barriers, and unequal exchanges can limit one’s professional career and clinical practice. While global health electives in resource-poor countries frequently offer a lot of clinical possibilities for visiting medical trainees—with all the ethical problems this may involve [
44]—visiting doctors from outside the European Union who want to work in the EU have been withdrawn the right to act clinically under supervision in some European countries, and have thus been reduced to mere bystanders. As an example, the regulations for non-EU guest doctors in Austria are very restrictive and bureaucratic and often only allow an “observership” without being able to interact with patients [
45]. This lack of reciprocity has made it increasingly difficult for colleagues of resource-poor countries to be actively involved in clinical work and it has also led to the seize of longstanding cooperation programs, e.g., with shared surgical teaching in Cape Verde and Austria [
46]. In a globalized medical and surgical world, such obstacles to establishing shared skills and networks have to be considered outdated, reactionary, and as hampering patient care on a worldwide scale.