What The Junior Doctors Are Saying And Why They Voted To Strike

by Benson Agoha | Health

After consultation between senior doctors and their junior counterparts, the British Medical Association approached Acas to offer conciliatory talks with the health secretary and NHS Employers in a bid to find a reasonable solution and avoid disruption to patients.

* (Credit: via Twitter)

But what are the Junior Doctors after?

With a turnout of 76.2 percent of junior doctors voting for industrial action, they have been speaking out on their grievances and why they intend to make December not so festive for patients.

From responses published by the British Medical Association, the argument centers on government's proposed removal of "safeguards" against unsafe hours when the subsisting ‘pay protection’ expires in 2019 and the threat to impose a contract on Doctors-in-Training in England.

What are these safeguards:

Much of these are to do with Doctors-In-Training who are paid a seemingly disproportionate amount for the jobs they do.

Basically they (safeguards) are assurances that keeps the heart of the juniors doctors at peace and help them to concentrate on the job - it borders on pay, conditions and number of hours such as:

* Hours used for research
* Working Abroad
* Gaining Varried experience
* Taking time to be certain of their specialties
* Becoming parents (Maternity or Paternity Leaves)
 

* (Credit: via Twitter)

Sanna Waseem, a core medical trainee in acute medicine in London said junior doctors make decisions that can impact on a patient's health and well-being and even their personal and professional life.

She says if the safeguards are removed, doctors may be forced to make such decisions when they have been physically and emotionally drained - rendering it not only unsafe, but also unethical.

She argued that "The conveyor belt approach to training will rob our profession of the rich and varied experience that makes excellent doctors."

Jasia Khan a trainee on emergency medicine in London said it was unfair to change the definition of unsociable hours for doctors and that it should apply to all - if at all.

"It’s unfair to change the definition of unsociable hours and this seems to be singling out our profession." Jasia said.

She said the premium pay made to doctors is an accurate reflection of the care they provide during unpopular hours and that the people making the cuts have no idea that the "removal of safeguards results in tired and burnt-out doctors."

Paula Bradley in otolaryngology or (ENT) from Newcastle said doctors do not work slowly by choice and that extending standard hours will not make the kind of difference people imagine.

She said patient safety is their priority and that no doctor works "more slowly for the prospect of getting paid more."

Amanda Friend is in Paediatrics from Leeds and said her biggest concern centres on the removal of safeguards against unsafe hours.

She said Tired doctors make mistakes, decision making is less sharp and procedural ability deteriorates.

She kicks against the proposed contracts saying it include "rotas with 23 hours ‘off’ between finishing night and commencing day shifts and there are no incentives to prevent doctors working stretches of over 12 days or seven night shifts without a rest, despite evidence that these shift patterns would lead to dangerously tired doctors."

She said, as an academic trainee, she worries that the proposed financial penalties for those who go ‘out of programme’ will put off many potential researchers from doing PhDs, for example.

While Philip Smith who is in Gastroenterology in London said clearly Government was trying to get junior doctors to work longer hours by removing the safeguards, but paying them less in the long term once the ‘pay protection’ expires in 2019.

"Most people realise that when you’re working more hours for the same money, it’s a pay cut." he said, adding "If Jeremy Hunt wants a seven-day NHS, he needs to be able to pay for it."