Last week the government published an equality impact assessment (EIA) of the controversially imposed junior doctor contract. The document makes for stark reading and has come under fierce criticism for its overt gender discrimination and its shocking conclusion that “any indirect adverse affect on women is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Think about that for a minute. That’s the conclusion of an EIA written by the UK government in 2016, not a line from a speech by Donald Trump.

Female doctors may be forced to quit over new contract, experts say Read more

I am a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon in training, and as such I inhabit one of the few areas in medicine where men continue to outnumber women. What makes me proud is that I can say “few”. Medicine has led the way in gender equality. A majority of our workforce is now female. The specialities such as mine, where gender imbalance remains, are working hard to open doors for women. The culture in medicine, for as long as I have been working in it, is one that cherishes and encourages gender parity and respect.

David Cameron purports to practise “compassionate conservatism” and promote “family values”. One can’t help but wonder then, has he read this document? If he has, is he not livid that his values are so obviously being trampled upon? He is fond of referring to his mandate for the Conservative manifesto commitment to produce a seven-day NHS, but he also promised “full genuine gender equality”.

If the prime minister’s aim is to achieve a seven-day NHS, it does not seem the best idea to lay siege to the frontline doctors who already staff hospitals every weekend, destroying their morale to the point that they are leaving the NHS in record numbers. Only 52% of junior doctors are applying to train as a specialist and medical school applications are down by 18% this year.

The overt nature of the discrimination within the new junior doctors' contract is incredible

If the prime minister’s aim is to reduce the gender pay gap, then it is not the best start to implement a policy that knowingly makes your nation’s largest employer introduce a new gender pay gap. The ineptitude of the contract in this respect is demonstrated by the Department of Health’s EIA itself. The overt nature of the discrimination within that contract is incredible; it admits that “features of the new contract will adversely impact on those who work part-time, a disproportionate number of which are women (80%).”

It removes pay increments, reduces maternity pay and the rate of pay for “on-call” work for less-than-full-time workers. As a result, female doctors doing the same job as male doctors will earn proportionately less. The department justifies this by saying “any indirect adverse effect on women which may occur is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

But it doesn’t stop there. The contract will also lead to a “gender cost gap”. Increased unsocial hours in the new contract “will disproportionately disadvantage those who need to arrange childcare (a disproportionate percentage of whom are women)”. Their solution to this is that women should find “informal unpaid childcare arrangements in the evenings and weekend”. Given that doctors regularly move hundreds of miles around the country for their training placements and out-of-hours childcare is very expensive, this leaves one wondering if the government in fact inhabits this world, or Narnia.

It’s not just women who are in the firing line, as according to the assessment “a disproportionate number of doctors with disability work part-time” and they will be affected in the same way. Single parents will also find themselves at a disadvantage, working more unsocial hours, with less remuneration yet expected to find childcare at the highest rates.

There is no surprise then that there has been a fierce backlash from doctors: men, women and senior female medical leaders as well as the presidents of our Royal Colleges. The Medical Women’s Federation voiced concern that these changes may well push women out of the profession altogether.

My fear is that I will be in a band of women who benefited from a time of a progressive NHS culture of gender parity, and I will look back to see we were a blip, an outlier. A medical student told me, in response to the revelations: “I’ve dared to hope some day I will be a surgeon. Now it just feels like the dreams of a silly girl who should know her place.” For someone, who once felt the same but dared to follow her dream and found differently, this brought me to tears.

Cameron clearly thinks that disadvantaging women doctors, single parents, hard-working doctor couples and those with disabilities is both legitimate and lawful. But that does not make it right – not in Britain, not in 2016. Doctors like me will continue to fight these regressive changes, but we need our leaders to stand up and defend the rights of women too.

The cuts to the disability living allowances were also lawful, but MPs across the house stood up to force the government to back down. It’s time MPs did the same again for doctors, because otherwise we are going to have to say to young women: “Yes, you can be a doctor – but you won’t ever be considered as good as a man.”