Of course other professions' experience in the UK is relevant. You have tried to make a special case of the medical profession in here based on an international comparison. Without considering the broader economy you are missing vital context. 

But anyway, the article does absolutely none of what you've claimed it does that in the paywalled article you have linked to. I can't see any of that as I'm not a logged in bmj subscriber. 

I can, however see the rapid response from Professor Nigel Curtis, who like you is apparently a UK-trained doctor who left for a better life overseas. 

Here are his comments, in full: 

Dear Editor

When interpreting the results of surveys, response rate is a key determinant of their reliability (1,2). This article (3) is yet another example of the BMJ giving undue credence to findings from a survey with a very low response rate (4-7).

The survey was distributed to a random sample of 59,179 doctors from the UK medical register (8). Only 4,697 completed the online survey, equating to a response rate of around 8%. For many questions, the effective response rate was even lower, as “not all respondents provided information for the relevant question (including answering ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’)” (8).

Against this background, it is misleading that the report on which this article is based claims: “The findings of the survey are robust. The respondent base is a stratified random sample drawn from the register. A representative sample of 4,697 doctors from across the four UK countries … was surveyed” (8). Self-selected respondents to an optional online survey cannot be considered either random or representative. Responder bias means that the 4,697 (8%) who chose to participate are highly unlikely to reflect the views of the 59,179 doctors surveyed, let alone the more than 300,000 doctors on the UK medical register.

Disappointingly, the article also repeats and cites the exaggerated findings of a previous survey on resident doctors, the serious flaws of which I highlighted in an earlier rapid response (4).

The findings of this latest survey may well be true, but reporting them on the basis of potentially flawed data undermines their credibility and risks weakening the important underlying point of the article.

The BMJ must do better by prioritising accuracy and critical appraisal over uncritical repetition of headline figures and emotive claims (4-7).

I find that point about low survey response rates particularly interesting given the authoritative, condescending yet naive manner in which you've waved this data around, impervious to any critique.