GPS have no right to demand extra funds for resuming normal service

SIR – Dr Richard Vautrey, chairman of the British Medical Association’s general practitioners committee, says that GPS need more money to resume face-to-face appointments (report, September 18) – something they accepted as normal practice before the pandemic.

Am I alone in wondering why? Stephen Howey

Woodford Green, Essex

SIR – Anyone who provides any sort of service to the public will be familiar with Dr Myles Johnson’s complaint (Letters, September 17) that patients have “unrealistic expectations” of their GPS. It comes with the territory.

However, expecting to get an appointment to see a GP within a reasonable amount of time to discuss a worrying health matter should never be classified among them.

Fortunately, however, Dr Richard Vautrey has the remedy: 30 pieces of silver.

Allan G Jones

Rhuddlan, Denbighshire

SIR – What next – teachers demanding more money to stand in front of a class, or policemen wanting more to go out on the beat?

Tony Manning

Barton on Sea, Hampshire

SIR – As a former member of the BMA’S GP committee, I am ashamed that its current chair denies the suggestion that patients are receiving worse care due to the rise of telephone and video consultations.

The evidence – from the many letters you and others have published, and from coroners’ reports – is definitely to the contrary. I know of one person who has been unable to see his GP about a knee problem, and has had to go private; another needs a blood test, which has been cancelled; and when I telephoned my GP practice, I had the call cut off after holding on for 40 minutes.

The reports of a young girl who died of appendicitis after three telephone consultations are but the tip of the iceberg. GPS must resume face-to-face consultations. I do, however, agree that more needs to be done to increase the number of GPS available.

Dr Malcolm Freeth

Bournemouth, Dorset

SIR – Selecting medical students exclusively from those with the highest grades does not produce the right mix of doctors (Letters, September 17).

The selection criteria of my Scottish medical school in the early 1960s were very different, but they were effective. From an initial class of 94, only three dropped out (with health problems). The rest of us stayed the course, passed finals and qualified. We had started our studies with the intention of a career in medicine and the result was a mixture of academics, consultants and GPS who, with a few exceptions, pursued their careers full-time.

Times have admittedly changed, but something has gone wrong with the selection process for future doctors.