Junior doctors are to strike once again. So what, you might state? When are they not threatening a walk-out? In the past 2 years, they have actually taken commercial action 11 times.

This makes me really upset. My medical union, the British Medical Association (BMA), is misusing public regard for physicians, mauling truths and pursuing Left-wing crusades with no regard for the cost to the health service.

Their insatiable demands for higher pay make my profession, my lifelong occupation, look tawdry, cynical and money-grubbing. There are minutes when I nearly feel I might rip up my subscription card in frustration.

But it isn't simply my union that is acting so disgracefully. The genuine perpetrator is the Labour government, whose ineptitude in union settlements considering that concerning power has triggered a greedy free-for-all.

Unless these outrageous needs can be brought under control, I fear the NHS might be bankrupted.

The flashpoint this month is the BMA's demand for a pay increase much better than the 4 per cent that was carried out on April 1 - an increase the union has dismissed as 'derisory'.

That 4 per cent is currently above the rate of inflation, which is currently running at 3.5 per cent. In truth, the deal used to junior physicians (or 'resident physicians', as we're now supposed to call them) supplies considerably more, as they will receive an additional ₤ 750 on top of the uplift, representing an average increase in salary of 5.4 percent.

And it comes on top of an enormous 22 per cent average increase provided by Health Secretary Wes Streeting in 2015 in a desperate bid to put a stop to the continuous strikes, after they required a 30 per cent pay rise.

Their pressing needs for higher pay make my occupation, my long-lasting occupation, look tawdry, cynical and money-grubbing, states Dr Max Pemberton

Junior physician members of the British Medical Association (BMA) on the picket line outside the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle in 2023

That craven capitulation by Labour didn't work, obviously - simply as surrender has proved not successful in mollifying the transportation unions, the instructors and every other militant cumulative. The BMA justifies its ongoing push for greater pay by claiming physicians are worse off by about a quarter in real terms because 2009.

The chairman of the BMA council, Professor Philip Banfield, sneers at the 4 per cent increase, stating it 'takes us backwards, pushing pay remediation even further into the range,' and adds ominously: 'Nobody desires a return to scenes of physicians on picket lines, but sadly this looks much more likely.'

What else did anybody anticipate? Unions are mandated to demand as much money for their members as they can get. They don't exist to be affordable or to accept compromise. And when Labour tried to purchase them off, the unions sensed weak point. Prof Banfield knows there are more concessions to be won now, more pips to be squeezed.

But the NHS is not some personal, profit-making corporation, and this is not a fight between a made use of labor force and fat cat shareholders. Our beleaguered health service is moneyed by all of us - and it is on its knees.

This is something most doctors can identify. Yet, over the past years or more, the union has actually been more concerned with pursuing Left-wing programs than acting in the very best interest of its members.

For example, the BMA's management has refused to back the Cass Review, commissioned by the NHS as a report into gender identity services for children and young people.

The findings by Dr Hilary Cass, published last year, advised versus hurrying under-18s into gender transition treatment, such as adolescence blockers, that they might later regret.

It ought to not be the BMA's role to introduce into a debate on the interpretation of medical evidence. That's what the Royal Colleges are for.

Sir Keir Starmer and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. This year's pay increase follows resident medical professionals were awarded rises worth 22 per cent by Mr Streeting in 2015

The union has actually overstepped its bounds, and I'm seriously unhappy about paying my subscription to an organisation that makes political declarations in my name.

These consist of calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, for instance, and criticism of China for human rights abuses - as if Hamas is going to return Israeli captives or Beijing is going to stop persecuting the Uighur minority, simply since a medical professional's union in the UK calls for it.

This is low-cost virtue-signalling, provided for no other reason than to make the BMA officers feel great about themselves.

I would appreciate them a lot more if they put their energy into fact-checking their own claims. The BMA is susceptible to bandying about numbers that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some of their figures relating to wages and inflation have been unmasked, utilizing data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Since BMA members include medical professionals with competence in medical data, it's an embarrassment to everyone.

Most of all, I dislike them for wasting the general public assistance for doctors that we made at terrific individual cost during the pandemic.

It is sickening that the authentic respect in which the medical profession was held simply five years earlier has been changed to a big degree by cynicism and even by disapproval.

Small wonder, then, that many junior physicians whine that their friends with tasks in tech or banking are better off than they are.

Junior doctors demonstrating outside Downing Street in 2015 throughout strike action

Medicine ought to be beyond comparison, not merely among a raft of professions measured only by the monetary benefits they bring.

This crisis has been brewing a long period of time, since before the 2010 coalition government.

Tony Blair's intro of university charges in 1998 has led directly to the scenario today, where almost all my junior associates owe money by approximately ₤ 100,000 - or even more.

As an outcome, an increasing variety of more youthful associates seem to see a career in medication as chiefly transactional.

They argue that not just have they worked for their degree, but they have actually also purchased and paid for it. And that if they can make more cash by giving up the NHS for the personal sector, or perhaps by emigrating to practice abroad, for example in Australia, well, why shouldn't they?

It's a radically various outlook to that of my generation. As somebody who was fortunate sufficient to have his six years of medical training moneyed by the state, I see my function as a psychiatrist as even more than simply a job. It's my calling.

DR MAX PEMBERTON: Functioning drug addicts hide in plain sight, here's how to identify the indications

I am deeply proud of what I do. Nothing else might replace it or offer me the exact same degree of satisfaction.

I personally believe that a person method to fix the crisis of dissatisfied and requiring young doctors is to treat trainee medical professionals and nurses as a special case.

Instead of being obliged to take out debilitating loans, medical students need to register to have their years of training moneyed by the state.

In return, they would undertake to work solely within the NHS for, say, 15 years. Their financial obligation would not be a financial one however something deeper - an obligation to society.

Naturally, they might break this responsibility if they wanted - however then they would be liable to repay part or all the expense of their training.

This would not just guarantee more junior physicians remained in Britain, rather than emigrating, however may also have a deep psychological effect.

But the BMA don't trouble themselves with solutions like this. Instead, they focus on political posturing and myopic and unrealistic pay demands. It likewise contributes to a hazardous generational divide in between older doctors and a new generation with different worths.

Unless the union comes to its senses, it will do countless damage to the NHS - the one organisation we are indicated to serve.