As a retired doctor, now 80, I feel sad as I watch our resident doctors struggle to exert pressure on the government to increase their pay packet (Wes Streeting ‘thought he had struck deal to halt strike by doctors’, 27 July). This behaviour will have far-reaching consequences, which are unlikely to be beneficial either to the doctors or the country.
Clearly, the action will cause delays in treatment and probably unnecessary morbidity and mortality. This will make the NHS vulnerable to pressure from those who favour its abolition. Already, it has alienated large sections of the population whose support the doctors have always been able to count on previously.
But the British Medical Association has assured resident doctors that it is necessary for them to put their livelihood ahead of the wellbeing of the public, to ensure that the NHS survives into the future. This is a false promise.
The commitment of resident doctors and nurses has always been integral to the success of the NHS, and there is no doubt that this has been central to the incredible efficiency it has demonstrated since its inception. It was conceived as a non-commercial organisation.
There have always been areas of the globe where doctors could earn more than at home. But for most, the attractions of the NHS outweighed pecuniary advantages available elsewhere. I fear that in setting their sights purely on increased remuneration, today’s resident doctors are leading the NHS towards a change in its entire ethos, the ethos that made it a success. The BMA should concentrate on improving doctors’ working conditions, as Wes Streeting has offered them.
Robert Behrman
Cookham Dean, Berkshire
On Sunday I cancelled my subscription to the British Medical Association after being a member for 39 years, in disgust at its insistence on going ahead with the strike of resident doctors in pursuit of a 29% pay rise, despite having had a 22% rise over the previous two years.
It is hard to know what is the correct rate of pay for resident doctors, but no other group in the health service is seeking such a rise in pay, and the decision to strike seems to ignore patients, as well as all the other staff alongside whom they work. I believe that improvement in the working conditions of doctors and all other groups should be sought through discussions, as the government has offered, not strikes.
Whatever the appropriate pay should be for resident doctors, they should be glad that they don’t get the equivalent of the £2 per hour we were paid in the 1980s for each of the 60 hours a week we had to be in the hospital over and above our basic 40-hour week.
Prof David Cameron
Belhaven, East Lothian
I do have a lot of sympathy for our resident doctors, even though I was on call on Sunday as a consultant. It is not just that pay has been eroded, but also that the cost of becoming a doctor has gone up, as has the cost of living in general.
Unlike in most other higher-paid professions, half of doctors are women. The cost of childcare has gone up significantly since my day. There is no more cheap hospital accommodation. And the student loan system is misogynistic in principle, the interest accumulating during maternity leave.
Women earn less during their careers but end up paying back a lot more for their student loans as a group. And because of the forced itinerant lifestyle, most doctors get their foot on the housing ladder quite late, having to pay increasingly unaffordable rents.
Marianne Gemmeke
Eastleigh, Hampshire
Wes Streeting rightly points out that 90% of resident doctors voted for strike action, with a 55% turnout (Resident doctors’ strike undermines union movement, says Wes Streeting, 25 July). That means just under 50% of all resident doctors voted in favour.
He fails to point out that Labour is in power on the votes of 34% of the 60% who turned out – about 20% of the electorate. The doctors’ result looks more convincing as a test of opinion, whatever you think of the pay award.
Peter West
London