Doctors taking industrial action is a jarring and uncomfortable notion.

The last time it happened was in 1975, so long ago that half of today's doctors will not even be able to remember it.

So the fact that doctors are now being balloted on strike action underscores how controversial the Government's public sector pension reforms remain, nearly a year on from the first mass walk-outs on the issue.

It is right that doctors' pension proposals are subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate, and that hard-working, committed medical staff, the backbone of Britain's beloved NHS, are properly rewarded in retirement. What's more, taking industrial action is a doctor's right and, should it go ahead, is set to be managed in such a way as to cause inconvenience, not danger, to patients.

Yet no industrial action can easily succeed without public support, and that is as true of doctors as anyone else. Medics are aggrieved that they are being asked to make higher pension contributions than some other senior public sector workers and that they may be required to work until 68 where certain other frontline public sector employees such as police officers can retire at 55. Looked at from that standpoint, their objections are justified, but there is a broader context that it would be risky for them to ignore.

That wider view recognises that increasing longevity has made pension changes a necessity in every sector of the economy, and in the vast majority of cases that means employees paying higher contributions for lower benefits. It also recognises that doctors are both well remunerated and receive a generous pension by comparison to many others, including well-educated, highly skilled workers in the private and voluntary sectors.

Where many workers pay their monthly contributions with no clear idea of what they can expect to receive in retirement, doctors still enjoy a defined benefits scheme.

GPs, who eight years ago agreed a new pay deal with the Government which resulted in them being paid more and exempted from providing out of hours cover, earn on average around £85,000 in Scotland, with many earning over £100,000. In view of that, many patients will feel their physicians could afford higher pension contributions.

This paper has a proud history of speaking up for public sector workers and defending their rights to fair pay and pensions, but with that support comes a responsibility to provide constructive criticism where necessary.

Of course it must be galling for doctors that a pension deal was agreed only four years ago and the scheme is now to be reformed once more, though the surplus in the existing scheme highlighted by doctors is unlikely to last. The question doctors must ask themselves, however, is whether that amounts to grounds for industrial action.

Doctors are rightly held in high regard, but they must be careful not to take that public support for granted.