Streeting urges doctors to vote against strike action
Resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors, in England are being balloted for strike action by the British Medical Association (BMA), which could last for six months.
'We can't afford to return to a continuous cycle of stand-offs, strikes, and cancellations,' the Health Secretary argued.
Writing in the Times, Mr Streeting said: 'Strikes should always be a last resort, and I don't think they are in anyone's interest today.
'I'm appealing to resident doctors to vote 'No' in the ballot, and instead continue the progress we've made, working together to rebuild our NHS.'
This comes as a new poll of 4,100 British adults by YouGov found that 48% of Britons oppose resident doctors going on strike, while 39% support them taking action.
YouGov said this 'marks a shift in opinion' of public support of striking junior doctors last summer, when the majority of Britons – 52% – said they supported it.
It highlighted how Labour supporters were most supportive of strike action, with Conservatives expressing the strongest opposition.
Resident doctors said their pay has declined by '23% in real terms since 2008'.
If they choose to go on strike then walkouts could begin in July and could potentially last until January 2026.
The Government accepted salary recommendations from pay review bodies earlier this month, resulting in an average 5.4% rise for resident doctors.
Junior doctors protest opposite Downing Street in June 2024 (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Writing for the newspaper, Mr Streeting stressed that 'we can't lose momentum', adding: 'There's so much more to do. But my message to anyone working in the health service is this: Stick with us.
'The NHS was broken, but it's not beaten. If we keep pulling together, we can turn it around.'
A leading patients' organisation said it was 'deeply concerned' about the prospect of strike action over the busy winter period in the NHS.
The Patients Association highlighted how previous strike action from doctors in training led to 1.3 million appointments, procedures and operations being postponed, with the true figure 'likely to be much higher'.
BMA resident doctors committee co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt said in a statement: 'Patients are all too aware how much the NHS relies on its resident doctors.
'With the announcement of yesterday's ballot, many will understandably be concerned about how future strike action might affect them getting care but it's important to stress that strike action is not inevitable and can be avoided.
'The Government has the power to honour its previous commitment to map out and restore doctors' pay, avoiding strikes entirely.
'We're confident that patients will recognise that the value of doctors has not diminished since 2008, but that working conditions and pay have.
'Wes Streeting must now step forward with a solution that allows us to stay with our patients, off the picket lines, and remain in this country rather than being driven to seek work abroad where doctors' unique skills and expertise are more appropriately valued.
'As the population ages and care becomes more complex, we need to make sure we retain doctors in the UK.'
The ballot will close on July 7.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Assisted dying: UK doctor says helping patients die in Australia is ‘privilege'
A British doctor working in Australia has described helping dying people to end their lives as 'a tremendous privilege'. Dr Emma Boulton, from Oxfordshire, spoke of the difference between her mother's 'horrible' decline over a period of weeks with respiratory failure in England and the 'very dignified' deaths she has been involved with in New South Wales. The 59-year-old, who trained and previously worked in the UK as a GP but is now based in Sydney, said her main role is assessing patients who have applied for an assisted death, but that she has been directly involved in ending the lives of 10 people. Known as intravenous practitioner administration, this involves injecting someone with an anaesthetic. In an interview with the PA news agency, she said: 'It's quick, it's painless, it's very dignified.' She added: 'When people go, there's often this palpable sense of relief, and it can be very uplifting, because you see this person who's deeply, deeply suffering in lots of ways, and they've made this really gutsy decision that they want to exit this world on their own terms, and they do so. 'And it's in a very dignified and quick and painless manner. 'It's a very moving thing to be involved with. I consider it a tremendous privilege to be involved in it and be able to assist people to determine their fate, particularly when they're going through intolerable suffering.' Dr Boulton recently took part in an event in Parliament to support campaigners from Humanists UK and My Death My Decision working towards a change in the law in England and Wales. Intravenous practitioner administration does not form part of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is due to return to the House of Commons for debate and more votes on amendments on Friday. The Bill proposes that a terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Speaking about the challenges of her role in New South Wales, Dr Boulton acknowledged that it is 'not work that's for everybody'. She said: 'You have to be pretty resilient and comfortable in your own skin and be able to work with these things. 'For me, personally, particularly for the first few (deaths) that I was involved with, I felt very strange. It's like, 'what have I done?' You know, I've spent my whole life prolonging life, and now in my hand, you know, somebody has died as a result of my actions. 'So it's quite an odd thing to have to deal with, but the way that I get around it is by knowing, understanding that I am alleviating suffering, and I'm acting on the patient's express wishes, and that really helps me through.' The Westminster Bill states that no person, including any medical workers, are obliged to take part in assisted dying, meaning doctors would be free to opt out if the law was changed and a service set up. Dr Boulton said her mother, Margaret, had endured a 'horrible feeling of slow suffocation' in the lead up to her death aged 88 in February last year, and that it had been a 'very frustrating' experience for the family, especially as her mother had voiced support for assisted dying. She said: 'When she knew that she was on the way out, that she was dying, she got very angry and said, 'I would really like to be able to just stop this now and just go'. 'What I witnessed with my mother is not that different from the suffering that I see in my assisted dying work. But the good thing is that if they meet the eligibility criteria in our assessment then the patients that I see (in Australia) can access the assisted dying process, whereas people in the UK can't.' Medics remains divided on the subject of assisted dying, with some MPs who are also doctors among the Bill's supporters, but the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) both airing concerns. The RCP said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies' with the proposed legislation while the RCPsych said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the current Bill. Earlier this week, around 1,000 doctors signed a letter to MPs urging them to vote against a Bill they described as 'simply not safe'. The doctors, from across the NHS, urged lawmakers to listen to those 'who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill', warning it 'poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. Dr Boulton said she believes much opposition to a change in the law is born from fear. 'I think objection is based in fear and I think a proper legislative framework would actually protect people and their practitioners,' she said. Many opponents of the Westminster Bill have raised concerns about people being coerced and the vulnerable being taken advantage of, but Dr Boulton said it is not a case of 'killing off granny'. She said: 'The patients I work with are incredibly calm. They're clear, they're very determined that this is a choice that they want to have. 'So, you know, people are worried about killing off granny because they want to get her money and that she's helpless and she can't make decisions for herself, and it's not like that at all. 'The process of assessment and making sure that people are fully aware and that this is an informed choice that they're making about their own life, having that really structured assessment framework actually protects people.'
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Letters: How ‘Nick' could save the Tories
Dying wish Sir: As a 99-year-old with, presently, no intention of requesting assistance to die, I am struck by the articles of Dan Hitchens and Tom Tugendhat ('Bitter end' and 'Killing me softly', 7 June), which base their strong opposition on the opinions of everyone other than the person supposed to be requesting such assistance. He or she, poor soul, is expected to just lie there and listen to whether they are to be allowed to have any opinion at all on the matter. It's my life they are writing about. At present I have the ability to end it whenever I might wish. What Messers Hitchens and Tugendhat are arguing is that, if I change my mind, no one is to be allowed to help me at a moment of my choosing. That's wrong. Alan Hall Westerham, Kent Life lessons Sir: In response to Tom Tugendhat, having seen a friend suffering with severe agitation because of uncontrolled pain, my concern is that there is a strong disincentive for medical practitioners to provide adequate pain control, as adequate doses can exceed the upper limit of the 'normal' recommended range, leaving the doctor liable to litigation. My proposal is to introduce a form of advance instruction from patients: Pain-relief Over Prolongation Of Life (POPOL). Similar to the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for life-threatening medical emergency advance instructions at the front of the medical record, this would make it clear that the patient and relatives stipulate giving enough analgesia to control pain, despite the likelihood of it shortening life. It would have similar status to the DNR. This could be relatively easily adopted and would provide a much less controversial way than 'assisted dying' of achieving what many people want – a pain-free death. Having advanced cancer myself, I can strongly empathise with a wish for this path to be followed, which indeed it often was when I first qualified 45 years ago. Dr Ros Furlong MBBS FRCPsych scientific adviser to SANE London N6 Saving Nick Sir: Your recent leading article rightly identifies Nick, the archetypal 30-year-old, as at the thin end of the wedge (31 May). Traditionally the Conservatives stood for him, empowering Nick to acquire capital, a home and a family. Shifting to side with those who already have something, and against those striving to acquire it, is what made the party lose its compass. I founded the group Next Gen Tories (NGT) to put Nick back on the radar. Tackling Nick's challenges is the key to reversing both the UK's economic decline and the party's. We must return to the popular capitalist vision which has been a hallmark of every other postwar Conservative government. If Nick wants to save himself and arrest the country's decline, he should join the Conservatives to force this change of pace. James Cowling London SE10 Brought to book Sir: Having taught A-level English literature for nearly 30 years, I can't agree with Philip Womack's assertion ('Literal disaster', 31 May) that some students' difficulty in interpreting older texts is a sign that 'the foundations of western culture are teetering into collapse'. Part of the joy of teaching literature is to guide students sensitively through the social and historical contexts of a text and build a bank of cultural capital for their future reading. I still blush when I recall my inability to 'elicit a scintilla of sense' from 'The Convergence of the Twain', Hardy's poem about the sinking of the Titanic. 'How could it be an august night,' I asked my teacher, 'when the ship sank in April?' Andy Simpson Sandbach, Cheshire Sir: Christian Wolmar's advice on Chinese banquets (Notes on, 31 May) is sound but incomplete. While it is important to pace yourself and to avoid the host, who is duty bound to press every dish upon you, there are other factors to remember. A refusal always offends, as does slow, reluctant consumption. My friend, a notoriously picky eater, recognised he must take part in the banquet for the good of his business, and managed to conceal a shudder as he accepted the proffered entire chicken foot. He coped by eating it quickly. His speed was taken as enthusiasm and his delighted host immediately offered him another. Joanne Aston Norby, Thirsk Period pains Sir: Madeline Grant is quite right to decry the distortion of history in recent shows ('The sad decline of period dramas', 7 June). The worst offender in this respect, of course, is one William Shakespeare (1564–1616). How much does his Richard III owe to the historical king? Not a lot, but he owes a mountain to Holinshed or, worse, to Thomas More. So much for character but, as for gender, don't get me started. His Joan of Arc was played by a boy, as was his Ophelia. For convenience naturally, and misrepresentation if you will. In the eyes of our national Bard, so it would appear, history is not in the past. It is in the present, and so are we. Robert Fraser Emeritus Professor, English and Creative Writing, Open University Tapioca heaven Sir: Olivia Potts rightly celebrates tapioca (The Vintage Chef, 31 May) but fails to mention the sublime payasam served in Tamil Nadu. This milky sweet cardamom-scented tapioca pudding has only one drawback: it is very difficult to eat with your fingers. But delicious nevertheless. Caroline Walker Beaminster, Dorset Write to us letters@
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
