Tag: BMA

  • PRESS RELEASE : Enough is enough: Junior doctors ‘not valued correctly’ [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Enough is enough: Junior doctors ‘not valued correctly’ [December 2022]

    The press release issued by the BMA on 30 December 2022.

    Core surgical trainee Roshan Rupra tells Tim Tonkin how he and his colleagues feel undervalued by the Government ahead of January’s industrial action ballot.

    ‘There are other healthcare professionals that, as doctors, we’re supervising who have less responsibility than ourselves and who are actually getting paid more than us,’ says Norwich core surgical trainee Roshan Rupra.

    ‘That’s not to say they shouldn’t be getting paid what they are, it’s just that, as doctors, we’re not valued correctly.’

    Dr Rupra feels there is little option for junior doctors than to consider industrial action due to the blatant disregard the Government had shown them in their efforts to engage with ministers over pay restoration. A BMA ballot for industrial action opens on 9 January.

    He says the failure to adequately remunerate junior doctors was all the more insulting given the enormous sacrifices and contributions made by so many during the height of COVID-19.

    ‘Over the pandemic, we have all worked well above and beyond. Lives were at risk and lives were lost during the pandemic, and what we got for that was a further real-terms pay cut [and] no obvious call from the government saying that our work has been appreciated.

    ‘The Government sends a very clear message that it does not value doctors in this country. This message is extremely clear based on how money is being spent,’ he adds.

    ‘We’ve seen billions wasted on test and trace and inadequate PPE [while] doctors are starting their careers on £14 per hour – it’s absolutely ludicrous.’

    Dr Rupra says the Government’s attitude to junior doctors and approach to negotiations on pay has left him feeling ‘hugely demoralised’ and feeling ‘expendable’.

    Added to the pressures brought on by pay and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, he says other immense service pressures resulting from NHS staffing shortages were a further source of discontent for many doctors in training.

    ‘We all want to be able to train and be the best that we can be,’ he says. ‘There is fierce, fierce competition for us as doctors because the amount of available training posts is limited by Health Education England.’

    Doctors who want to progress don’t have the time or support, he says, explaining: ‘Often we have to dig out of our own pockets, and in our own time, to become better than the other doctor.

    ‘Mentally that takes an enormous toll. We don’t all have [financial] support from family or friends. I‘m very fortunate that my partner goes the extra mile to help make sure I can get by day-to-day, but not everybody has that.’

    On top of pay and the exhausting demands of day-to-day work, Dr Rupra says unacceptable working conditions faced by many juniors feel like a further kick in the teeth.

    ‘We have to pay for our own parking and I have to get changed in in toilets [as] there are no changing rooms available,’ he says. ‘More often than not in places I’ve worked there are no resting facilities or a doctors’ mess.

    When a doctors’ mess is provided, he says his experience is that they ‘have very limited furniture’ are ‘extremely unclean’ and have no bedsheets or pillows.

    ‘I’ve commonly slept on the floor in the doctors’ office,’ he says. ‘These are completely disgusting working conditions and we’re supposed to be role models for health.’

    Dr Rupra is among the doctors reacting to the results of a BMA survey on wellbeing in the latest edition of The Doctor, which you can read here.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Leading barrister dismisses claim that doctors could face criminal liability for industrial action [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Leading barrister dismisses claim that doctors could face criminal liability for industrial action [December 2022]

    The press release issued by the British Medical Association on 29 December 2022.

    A leading barrister has dismissed a claim by solicitors acting for NHS Employers that doctors who take industrial action risk facing potential criminal liability.

    The BMA asked Lord Hendy KC, of Old Square Chambers, to give his legal opinion on a passage in a document entitled FAQs – Contingency Planning and Industrial Action, which was published by Capsticks in October.

    Capsticks solicitors proposed that ‘it is a criminal offence for a person to strike or take industrial action if to do so is likely to endanger human life or cause serious bodily harm’, arguing this applied to doctors in areas such as A&E, maternity, pharmacy and radiology.

    The firm’s document suggested ‘the onus should be on unions/individual staff members to ensure that those areas designated critical are covered’ citing section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

    But Lord Hendy said: ‘I see no justification for the assertion that s.240 compels an automatic exemption from the right to strike’.

    His legal opinion, seen by The Doctor, says ‘the [Capsticks] document is in danger of seriously misleading readers, whether doctors or managers’ and ‘fails to do justice to the provision.’

    Lord Hendy said several aspects require consideration, including whether an individual taking industrial action not only intentionally breaks their contract but also knows the ‘probable consequence’ of the breach will be to endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury.

    He argues that probable has a different meaning to possible and thus, for criminal liability to be upheld, any potential claimant must prove ‘the doctor’s withdrawal of his or her labour is significantly more likely than not to be the cause of death or serious injury to a patient.’

    Lord Hendy noted a guilty intention must be shown to prove criminal liability and that ‘a hypothetical patient does not suffice’ when arguing a life may be endangered by a doctor taking industrial action.

    He said: ‘This is an important point, for whatever ill-will a junior doctor in the present dispute may have towards the secretary of state or towards his/her employing trust and which may be part of the motivation for his or her participation in the planned strike, it is next to impossible to conceive that a doctor will join the BMA strike with the intention of harming a patient.’

    Lord Hendy cited ‘no legal precedent’ for claiming striking doctors intentionally endanger life, adding: ‘The offence does not even merit a mention in the leading criminal law text [Archbold on Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2023].’

    He said: ‘It might be thought grossly insulting for an NHS employer to suggest of its doctors that any of them would participate in industrial action in the belief that his/her personal participation (alone or with other BMA members) would, or would probably, endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury. It would be equally insulting to suggest that such a doctor would be indifferent (reckless) as to such a consequence.

    ‘The principle of ‘first, do no harm’ is in the mind of every doctor. The avoidance of danger to human life or of serious injury is the very reason why the BMA invariably seeks to agree arrangements to deal with the industrial action with NHS employers, in the first place dealing with emergency cover and in the second in the circumstances of a complete withdrawal of labour by BMA members.’

    Lord Hendy noted the Capsticks document is ‘hardly conducive to the maintenance of good industrial relations in the NHS’ and ‘may impede discussions about strike arrangements’.