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

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

Their insatiable needs for greater pay make my profession, my lifelong vocation, look tawdry, cynical and money-grubbing. There are minutes when I almost feel I might rip up my subscription card in aggravation.

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

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

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

That 4 per cent is currently above the rate of inflation, which is currently performing at 3.5 percent. In reality, the offer offered to junior medical professionals (or 'resident physicians', as we're now supposed to call them) supplies substantially more, as they will get an extra ₤ 750 on top of the uplift, representing an average boost in income of 5.4 percent.

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

Their pressing demands for higher pay make my occupation, my lifelong vocation, look tawdry, negative and money-grubbing, states Dr Max Pemberton

Junior medical professional 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, of course - simply as surrender has actually shown not successful in mollifying the transportation unions, the teachers and every other militant cumulative. The BMA justifies its continued push for greater pay by declaring doctors are even worse off by about a quarter in real terms given that 2009.

The chairman of the BMA council, Professor Philip Banfield, sneers at the 4 per cent boost, saying it 'takes us in reverse, pushing pay repair even further into the distance,' and includes ominously: 'Nobody wants a go back to scenes of doctors on picket lines, but unfortunately this looks far more likely.'

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

But the NHS is not some private, profit-making corporation, and this is not a battle in between an exploited labor force and fat feline investors. Our beleaguered health service is moneyed by all of us - and it is on its knees.

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

For example, the BMA's leadership has actually declined to endorse the Cass Review, commissioned by the NHS as a report into gender identity services for kids and youths.

The findings by Dr Hilary Cass, published last year, encouraged versus rushing under-18s into gender transition treatment, such as puberty blockers, that they may later be sorry for.

It must not be the BMA's function to introduce into a dispute 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 comes after resident medical professionals were awarded rises worth 22 per cent by Mr Streeting in 2015

The union has overstepped its bounds, and I'm seriously dissatisfied about paying my membership 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 hostages or Beijing is going to stop maltreating the Uighur minority, even if a medical professional's union in the UK requires it.

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

I would admire 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 withstand examination.

A few of their figures relating to earnings and inflation have been debunked, using data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Since BMA members include doctors with proficiency in medical data, it's a humiliation to everybody.

Most of all, I detest them for wasting the public support for doctors that we made at excellent personal cost throughout the pandemic.

It is sickening that the real respect in which the medical occupation was held just 5 years back has been changed to a large degree by cynicism and even by displeasure.

Small marvel, then, that numerous junior doctors grumble that their buddies with jobs in tech or banking are much better off than they are.

Junior physicians demonstrating outside Downing Street last year during strike action

Medicine should be beyond contrast, not simply one of a raft of careers determined just by the monetary benefits they bring.

This crisis has been brewing a long time, because before the 2010 coalition government.

Tony Blair's intro of university costs in 1998 has led straight to the scenario today, where virtually all my junior colleagues are in financial obligation by up to ₤ 100,000 - or perhaps more.

As a result, an increasing variety of more youthful colleagues seem to see a profession in medication as mainly transactional.

They argue that not only have they worked for their degree, however they have actually likewise purchased and spent for it. And that if they can earn more cash by giving up the NHS for the private sector, or even by emigrating to practice abroad, for instance in Australia, well, why shouldn't they?

It's a significantly different outlook to that of my generation. As someone who was lucky adequate to have his six years of medical training funded by the state, I see my function as a psychiatrist as far more than just a task. It's my calling.

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

I am deeply happy with what I do. Nothing else might replace it or provide me the same degree of satisfaction.

I personally think that one way to fix the crisis of dissatisfied and requiring young medical professionals is to deal with student medical professionals and nurses as an unique case.

Instead of being required to get debilitating loans, medical students need to register to have their years of training funded by the state.

In return, they would carry out to work specifically within the NHS for, state, 15 years. Their debt would not be a monetary one but something much deeper - a responsibility to society.

Obviously, they could break this commitment if they wanted - but then they would be liable to repay part or all the expense of their training.

This would not just ensure more junior physicians remained in Britain, instead of emigrating, but might likewise have a deep psychological result.

But the BMA don't trouble themselves with options like this. Instead, they focus on political posturing and myopic and impractical pay needs. It also contributes to a dangerous generational divide in between older doctors and a brand-new generation with different values.

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