Academic says fewer women should be allowed to train as doctors because men are 'better value for money'
'Young men will give a full career of medical service and provide society with much better value for the money spent on medical training'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Female junior doctors have reacted with fury to a letter by a retired LSE academic which suggested fewer women should be “allowed” to become doctors.
In a letter to the Times, Emeritus reader in economics at LSE, Dr Roger Alford, questioned the wisdom of employing women as doctors because they are “likely in due course to move to part-time appointments”.
Responding to an editorial by the newspaper which called for the Government to allow universities to train more doctors, he wrote: “I understand that there is now a very high proportion of women students in our medical schools, and that many women doctors are likely in due course to move to part-time appointments.
“Given that the role of medical schools must be to deliver the full-time frontline doctors that we need, surely the number of young women allowed to begin training should be considerably limited to allow in more young men who will give a full career of medical service and provide society with much better value for the money spent on medical training.”
The letter was greeted with fury and humour on Twitter, attracting derision from both doctors and feminist campaigners.
Third-year medical student at the University of York, Jaime Bolzern, told The Independent: "The idea that limiting women’s access to the medical profession is an appropriate way to save money for the NHS is both sexist and myopic.
"'Hire men instead' is not a solution to a problem. its suggestion is a reflection of a society which continues to undervalue the contributions of women.
"Occupational therapy, nursing and midwifery are all female-dominated professions which have their training subsidised by the NHS. I don’t see Roger Alford calling for those fields to limit the number of women who can enter them."
It comes as junior doctors stage their fourth strike over new contracts which they say will force them to work unsafe hours and several weekends in a row.
On Monday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that the new contracts could violate equality rules after the Government’s own equality analysis says there are “features of the new contract that impact disproportionately on women”.
The equality analysis said the new contracts would “disadvantage” women working part-time and single parents.
There also may be “adverse impacts regarding maternity leave”.
A spokesman for LSE told The Independent: "The letter is a personal view of a retired academic. It does not reflect LSE’s position”.
The Independent was not able to reach Dr Alford for comment.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments