I fully support pay restoration. I support pay restoration even if it requires industrial action.
Comparing roles, duties, responsibilities, legal liabilities, and pay with other professions is valid. It's legally protected activity because it's an important way to prevent discriminatory pay. I'm not suggesting that you should not be comparing pay.
A small number of people, probably not you, are less interested in pay restoration and more interested in bashing PAs. Those people will attach themselves to the pay restoration campaign, and they will cause harm to the campaign. They cause harm by diluting and distorting the core message, which requires time-consuming comms to fix. You should not under-estimate the harm this could cause to the campaign, especially when there are many national newspapers who are actively hostile against the NHS, and who will use anything to attack the NHS. The other way they cause harm is that people, including doctors, find this attack on their colleagues, to be off-putting. They are less likely to join a campaign if they think it's about more than pay restoration. They are less likely to join a campaign if they think it's also about bashing PAs and other healthcare professionals.
When we look at the language of industrial action we see many words for collectivism: collective action, solidarity, unison, etc. You win by building support. You lose by splitting support.
What's the point of the comparison? There are a few reasons the comparison is being made. i) To show junior doctors just how little they'e getting paid. ii) To show everyone else how little junior doctors are getting paid.
Maybe it's effective and useful for (i) but blimey, come on, persuading people who are underpaid that they are underpaid feels like it's a disaster for the campaign.
I don't feel like it's at all useful for (ii). Very few people have any idea what a doctor is (how much education does someone need to become a doctor, how much medical education and training do they need to move to consultant, what's an SAS doctor, what are the different responsibilities between FY, CT, and ST). Very few people understand the Modernising Medical Careers ranks. Almost no-one knows what a PA is. This means that your apparently simple message ("Junior doctors are paid less than PAs, but have more duties and more onerous legal liabilities") disintegrates on contact with the public because their first question will be "What's a PA?" (that is, if their first question isn't "So what? Who cares?", which it very well might be in the current climate of anti-NHS rhetoric from national media.) You may think that this opens the door to more discussion. No. Mostly it closes the door. You've lost the interest of your audience.
The other reason it's not so useful for (ii) is, and this is an uncomfortable truth, most people simply don't care. They have a problem, they want it fixed, and they don't care much who fixes it or how.
How will politicians react to this argument? We know that Conservatives will say "You have a choice. If you want PA pay you should train to be a PA." They've used this same point across a range of different sectors. And that's just the honest Conservatives. The rest are going to say that you wish to restrict access to healthcare to artificially inflate your value, that you're elitist, that you have superiority complexes. (And, fair play, that's true for a small number of you isn't it). The Labour party will say "The Tories ran down the NHS and we need to take urgent action, and that means increasing options for access. We're going to remove artifical barriers. If you don't need to see a doctor, we'll make it easier to see someone who'll help you."
Try a though experiment: we push a magic button and PAs are removed from the NHS. Do doctors still need pay restoration? The answer is clearly "yes". PA pay is almost entirely irrelevant to the argument.