Doctors and feminists alike have been responding with derision to a senior academic's suggestion that fewer women should be "allowed" to train as doctors.

Roger Alford, who taught in the economics department at the London School of Economics (LSE) from 1952-92, wrote in a letter to The Times that male doctors were "better value for the money spent on medical training", as women were more likely to eventually decide to work part-time.

Dr Alford, who is currently Emeritus reader in economics at LSE, 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."

“Men are better value for money”: Academic argues for limits on numbers of female trainee doctors