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

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

Their pressing demands for greater pay make my profession, my lifelong occupation, look tawdry, negative and money-grubbing. There are minutes when I nearly feel I might rip up my membership card in frustration.

But it isn't just my union that is behaving so disgracefully. The real culprit is the Labour federal government, whose ineptitude in union settlements since coming to power has set off a greedy free-for-all.

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

The flashpoint this month is the BMA's need for a pay increase much better than the 4 percent that was executed on April 1 - an increase the union has dismissed as 'derisory'.

That 4 per cent is already above the rate of inflation, which is presently running at 3.5 per cent. In reality, the offer used to junior medical professionals (or 'resident doctors', as we're now expected to call them) supplies considerably more, as they will get an additional ₤ 750 on top of the uplift, representing an average boost in income of 5.4 percent.

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

Their insatiable demands for higher pay make my profession, my long-lasting occupation, 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, naturally - just as surrender has proved not successful in mollifying the transportation unions, the teachers and every other militant cumulative. The BMA justifies its continued push for higher pay by claiming doctors are worse off by about a quarter in genuine terms since 2009.

The chairman of the BMA council, Professor Philip Banfield, sneers at the 4 per cent increase, stating it 'takes us backwards, pressing pay remediation even further into the distance,' and includes ominously: 'No one desires a return to scenes of medical professionals on picket lines, however regretfully this looks far more most likely.'

What else did anybody expect? Unions are mandated to require as much cash for their members as they can get. They don't exist to be reasonable or to embrace compromise. And when Labour tried to buy 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 between a made use of workforce and fat feline shareholders. Our beleaguered health service is funded by all of us - and it is on its knees.

This is something most medical professionals can identify. Yet, over the past decade or more, the union has been more worried with pursuing Left-wing agendas than acting in the best interest of its members.

For example, the BMA's leadership has actually declined to back 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, recommended versus rushing under-18s into gender transition treatment, such as puberty blockers, that they may later regret.

It must not be the BMA's function to launch into an argument 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 rise follows resident doctors were granted increases worth 22 percent by Mr Streeting last year

The union has violated its bounds, and I'm seriously dissatisfied about paying my membership to an organisation that makes political statements in my name.

These include require a ceasefire in Gaza, for example, and criticism of China for human rights abuses - as if Hamas is going to return Israeli hostages or Beijing is going to stop persecuting the Uighur minority, even if a medical professional's union in the UK calls for it.

This is inexpensive virtue-signalling, done for no other factor 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 prone to bandying about numbers that do not withstand analysis.

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

Most of all, I detest them for wasting the public assistance for physicians that we made at excellent individual cost throughout the pandemic.

It is sickening that the real respect in which the medical occupation was held simply five years earlier has actually been replaced to a big degree by cynicism and even by displeasure.

Small marvel, then, that numerous junior medical professionals whine that their friends with jobs in tech or banking are much better off than they are.

Junior doctors demonstrating outside Downing Street last year throughout strike action

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

This crisis has been brewing a very long time, given that before the 2010 coalition federal government.

Tony Blair's intro of university fees in 1998 has actually led directly to the situation today, where almost all my junior colleagues owe money by up to ₤ 100,000 - or perhaps more.

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

They argue that not only have they worked for their degree, but they have actually also purchased and paid for it. Which if they can earn more money by quitting the NHS for the economic sector, or perhaps by emigrating to practise abroad, for example in Australia, well, why should not they?

It's a significantly various outlook to that of my generation. As somebody who was fortunate sufficient to have his 6 years of medical training funded by the state, I see my role as a psychiatrist as far more than just a task. It's my calling.

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

I am deeply happy with what I do. Nothing else could replace it or offer me the exact same degree of satisfaction.

I personally think that a person way to fix the crisis of dissatisfied and requiring young doctors is to treat student physicians and nurses as a special case.

Instead of being required to take out debilitating loans, medical students must sign up to have their years of training moneyed by the state.

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

Naturally, they might break this obligation if they wanted - but then they would be liable to pay back part or all the expense of their training.

This would not only guarantee more junior doctors remained in Britain, instead of emigrating, however might also have a deep psychological effect.

But the BMA do not bother themselves with services like this. Instead, they focus on political posturing and myopic and unrealistic pay needs. It likewise contributes to a hazardous generational divide between older doctors and a brand-new generation with different values.

Unless the union comes to its senses, it will do immeasurable harm to the NHS - the one organisation we are suggested to serve.