For generations, Britain's junior doctors were synonymous with exploitation and overwork. To deliver its services, the National Health Service relied on them working up to 100 hours a week. It is self-evident that this put both doctors and their patients at risk. In 1998, most British employees, including hospital consultants, became subject to the European Working Time Directive, restricting working hours. It was a measure intended to create minimum rights for all workers. Cognisant that imposing the legislation on junior doctors immediately would be catastrophic for the health service, the government permitted gradual implementation with the 48-hours-a-week limit deferred to August 2009.

For generations, Britain's junior doctors were synonymous with exploitation and overwork. To deliver its services, the National Health Service relied on them working up to 100 hours a week. It is self-evident that this put both doctors and their patients at risk. In 1998, most British employees, including hospital consultants, became subject to the European Working Time Directive, restricting working hours. It was a measure intended to create minimum rights for all workers. Cognisant that imposing the legislation on junior doctors immediately would be catastrophic for the health service, the government permitted gradual implementation with the 48-hours-a-week limit deferred to August 2009.

However, as The Herald reveals today, half of Scotland's 5000 junior doctors are currently working in excess of 48 hours and only one health board was able to provide a copy of its plans for compliance. The diary of one trainee doctor shows him working more than 100 hours over nine days. This is barely an improvement on the bad old days when exhausted young doctors made catastrophic errors in treatment or fell asleep at the wheel on the way home after days without proper rest.

Scotland has particular problems meeting the new regulations. The country has a disproportionately large number of hospitals per head of population and plans to centralise some emergency care (partly to meet the EWTD requirements) were reversed by the incoming Scottish Government last year. If patient services are to be safeguarded and doctors benefit, there needs to be innovation in the way healthcare is delivered. These have included training nurses to carry out tasks normally assigned to doctors and changing the way hospitals are staffed at night. Nevertheless, it is alarming that a year before the deadline, Scottish health boards appear to be having difficulty meeting the current interim 56-hour limit on doctors' hours, let alone 48 hours, in the way they plan and cover rotas. Failure to meet the deadline could result in legal action and fines.

Meanwhile, there is concern that doctors are failing to accumulate enough hands-on experience during their training to feel confident in performing common procedures when they qualify. This is a particular concern for would-be surgeons. Training and book-learning are no substitute for practical experience.

What is to be done? British (and Scottish) governments have a tendency to interpret European legislation more zealously than other EU states. In this instance, though the rights of junior doctors require protection, there is an argument for some flexibility. After all, trainee doctors often choose to stay on after a shift out of commitment to patients and to improve their expertise. Another suggestion is to introduce two kinds of contracts, one specifically for training and another for service to the NHS, some of which has little training benefit. This would probably entail extending the training period, which is already lengthy by comparison with other professions.

Given that there is already concern about the way the feminisation of the medical profession is increasing the number of GPs and consultants opting to work part-time, the long-term solution to this problem may be simply to train more doctors.