Doctors aren't the only ones with power to end the strike. What about their demands? Doctors who aren't getting what they need aren't able to provide the best care either.

It's the government that has systematically been selling off the NHS to private companies and allowing private insurers to let those who can pay skip those queues making them longer for everyone else, and it's the government that has refused to give enough money both to the NHS itself and its staff (intentionally, so that it can't function, which makes people like you complain about queues and blame strikes instead of looking at why they are both happening in the first place, while they're busy doing the aforementioned selling off and profiteering).

Well done for putting yourself up as an example to show everyone who this propaganda is aimed at and how well it works.

Okay, so this kind of rationale is used a lot in the US to justify treating all kinds of professions (almost always those that exist at the action layer, where you're doing the actual nominal work of the business) like shit. The rough format is "Won't someone PLEASE think of the {customer}?!" Of course, this is always aimed at the people at the action layer, never ever at the administrative level. So, it might be more accurate to say "YOU need to care about the customer [because nobody else will]." It's often very closely tied to sacrifice rhetoric in the workplace, where the employer places the onus on the employee to sacrifice, often without any bound. In other words, to accept personal loss with no expectations of recompense; they'll take as much as they can get from the employee, and no amount of sacrifice will ever be 'enough', as there will always be some new crisis demanding a new sacrifice.

In teaching, this is "Won't someone please think of the kids? What will they do if there's no school? Remember why we're here, it's about the kids." In EMS and all of healthcare, just replace the kids with the patients. It's very common to see this in any industry where they think they can get away with paying their people in passion. It's shitty and exploitive, and it ultimately does a disservice to the customer by creating high employee turnover, low organizational experience, organizational dysfunction (often in spite of ballooning admin costs and positions in these types of sectors) and more burned out employees.

Ya an over worked under paid medical workers with limited resources is preferred... The only people hurting others is wealthy individuals

How about, refusal to pay fair wages to [insert worker category] harms [insert end user]?

Article says it’s coming into a period when the NHS is coming under pressure- what do you think that translates to for the doctors and healthcare professionals that prop up that system? Sunshine and roses?

Back to reddit you go

Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there's a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is "harming" patients.... By some definition of "harm".

However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.

It's the government's responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they're pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that's a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.

The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being "harmed" from the lack of doctors due to the strike.... From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.