As a doctor, I worry what five-day strikes are doing to the patients

I am writing to express my deep concern at reports of delays to medical procedures caused by the five-day strike by junior doctors.

As a consultant in the UK since 2006, and former head of the doctors’ trade union at the Municipal Hospital in Gdansk, Poland, it is a situation I find particularly troubling.

During my tenure, even under directives to strike from the national doctors’ union, we ensured that care for every child and cancer patient, including surgical treatments, was never compromised. Strikes only affected elective procedures, and urgent care was always provided without delay.

It is crucial that the medical community and regulatory bodies uphold the General Medical Council (GMC) standards during doctors’ strikes. The GMC’s guidelines clearly state that, irrespective of strike action, doctors must continue to follow the principles outlined in Good Medical Practice. Specifically, they must act promptly if they believe patient safety or dignity is, or may be, seriously compromised.

Children should never be used as bargaining chips in any strike involving healthcare professionals. Thoughtful consideration should ensure they are exempt from any negative consequences resulting from medical strikes. This suggestion should be carefully considered for future amendments to the medical code of ethics.

Patient care must remain the highest priority even during a strike. Adhering to these standards ensures that no patient is adversely affected by delays in necessary medical procedures.

Dr Mariusz Madalinski

Address Supplied

So, there were 1,781 assaults by women prisoners last year, including 54 sexual assaults ("Violence and self-harm in women’s jails hits record high as prisons crisis deepens,” Thursday 27 June). I am willing to gamble that not a single one of those assaults was by a trans woman, or else it would surely have been news.

Non-trans women, deprived of liberty, hope and family in awful circumstances, are also capable of violence. But where are the calls to transfer the assailants to male prisons “for the safety of women”?

Something to remember next time JK Rowling and others demand that trans women be excluded from “women’s spaces”.

Rachael Padman

Newmarket

The government recently stated that the UK has had to do more to protect children online in the last decade than any other country. Yet, none of the parties offer a clear road map for this critical issue.

When it comes to limiting access to adult content and social media, decades of experience working with schools and safety technology has now made it clear that age verification is not the solution to keeping children safe online. In fact, proposals to use age-verification gates make a number of unlikely or erroneous assumptions.

Firstly, such a regime can only focus on a small number of online platforms. The reality is that toxicity and misbehaviour occur vastly beyond the mainstream porn and social platforms.

Secondly, teenagers will find it trivial to bypass age verification through either VPNs or the increasing number of bio-hacks which are developing with the AI revolution.

Thirdly, young children access adult content through many means other than the major porn sites. Age verification does not deal with search previews, message sharing, content shared in social and gaming platforms or inadvertent access through shared and parent devices (which will have verification tokens on them).

The only truly reliable and effective approach to controlling a child’s online activity is by controlling the device they’re using.

What the UK urgently needs is regulations which ensure parents have the same access to the safety technology as big enterprises enjoy. With this, there will be a fundamental upgrade of safety capability available for UK parents, schools and market forces.

We cannot afford to delay any longer; the safety of our children in the digital world must be a top priority.

Tim Levy

Address supplied

Keir Starmer has said he is concerned about moving his family into 10 Downing Street if Labour wins the general election.

Well, then… don’t. His wife and children can stay at home, and he can use No 10 as an office.

It is often suggested that Downing Street is quite unsuitable as a seat of government. As with many things, Starmer has an opportunity to change things.

Dr Anthony Ingleton

Sheffield

Holly Bancroft’s recent article shows up a key omission from the current election discourse on the need for new homes – how suitable will they be for the needs of older and disabled people?

By 2041, the UK will see an increase of 4.4 million people aged 65 and over, significantly amplifying the demand for accessible housing.

Currently, more than 1.8 million disabled people and older people live in unsuitable homes, facing daily barriers to independence and wellbeing. This demands immediate action if our nation’s housing stock is to be fit for the future.

We need all new homes to be built to accessible and adaptable standards (as defined in Building Regulations) which provide ease of living and speedy, cost-effective adaptation when a household needs change.

By ensuring all new homes meet these standards the next government could save millions in reduced health and social care costs and support greater economic participation among disabled and older people.

We have a unique opportunity to build a more inclusive society by prioritising accessible design and making sure all new homes are capable of meeting people’s changing needs.

Accessible homes are not just “nice to have” they are an economic necessity that will benefit all.

The HoME Coalition

Bradford

We can always rely on the delightful Nadine Dorries to bring us a lighthearted moment at times of political turmoil. Once again, she has confounded and confused us with her logic.

She has long blamed Michael Gove for the ills of the Tory party. But now, it will be his fault if, as predicted by countless polls, the Conservative Party suffers its worst drubbing ever.

The reason the equally delightful Mr Gove is to blame? Because he and the think tanks he created always promoted a “socialist” rather than a “conservative” option. Using her logic, the electorate will be sticking with the Tories, then – rather than voting for the actual socialists in the Labour Party?

Karen Brittain

York