IT is with an overwhelming sense of personal failure that I note the circumstances that have led to the resignation of Dr Jennifer Foster after 20 years' unblemished service as general practitioner to the Drymen community ("Village GP quits after pharmacy is given go-ahead", The Herald, May 9).

As her representative on the area medical committee I had successfully defended her practice against a speculative pharmacy application a few years ago and, as chairman of BMA Scotland, have advocated to the Scottish Government the need for an urgent review of the regulations to prevent this type of adverse outcome for patient services that has affected Cumbrae, Killin, and now Drymen and Aberfoyle.

In both Aberfoyle and Drymen it is difficult to fathom why Forth Valley's pharmacy practices committee has come to the decision it has in the face of serious doubts over the viability of a pharmacy, widespread and articulate community opposition and all this after its rejection of similar applications a short time ago. It leaves the doctors concerned in a completely unstable position as to the future of their practices and, more importantly, promises to compromise existing medical services for patients.

The current Scottish Government review has come too late for these communities, despite ministers having been warned of the consequences of not addressing the issue as far back as 2010.

Any change to regulations now will be little comfort to rural communities which face funda­mental change to their general practices - a situation that could have been avoided by a more timely intervention and one that leads to further anxiety over the future of comprehensive medical services in Scottish rural areas.

Dr Brian D Keighley,

Chairman, BMA Scotland,

14 Queen Street, Edinburgh.

IT is a great loss to the people of Drymen that Dr Jennifer Foster should feel it necessary to leave the GP practice after some 20 years because of a bureaucratic government policy. The dispensing of medicines by GPs in rural areas has worked well for years and yet rules and regulations mean that an increasing number of practices are losing this facility in favour of the establishment of high street pharmacies.

The GPs in Aberfoyle are fighting to retain the ability to dispense medicines and who knows where the Government axe will fall next. The resultant loss of income is a blow to doctors who are striving to provide the best possible service to their patients and their ability to offer this must suffer.

The wishes of local people are being largely ignored, with decisions being made by an anonymous committee. If this is an example of government ineptitude and central­isation before independence, heaven help us when they get full control of the purse strings.

Bob MacDougall,

Oxhill, Kippen.

THE recent revelations about the huge number of gagging clauses imposed on employees leaving the NHS suggest that the climate of the work environment has changed little in my absence ("Health gagging orders face tough scrutiny by ministers", The Herald, May 7). The NHS is a national treasure to be protected at all times, but not by all means. My parting impression of the organisation was one of employees under pressure trying to maintain standards against a background of increasing clinical loads, tightening budgets and a target-orientated management structure, itself caught between a rock and a hard place responding to pressure from above by trying to do more with less. In my wee corner of the NHS where I had worked for years it felt that what had been almost a "family business" had been taken over by asset-strippers intent on squeezing the last drop of efficiency out of the place.

Nobody is more supportive of the NHS than its workforce, but while being rightly proud of our NHS, to suggest that all sectors work efficiently and ethically is plainly ridiculous. With that in mind, when somebody from within raises concerns as to how it operates these concerns must be treated seriously and it is of paramount importance that the whistleblower is not penalised. Why then, as in the case of NHS Lothian and the concerns raised by Dr Jane Hamilton, do we allow the party that is accused of some failing to investigate and adjudicate on the complaint?

Professionals within the NHS rarely raise their heads above the parapet as it can be professional suicide to do so, and that is unsupportable. The first step in redressing the balance and restoring public confidence in the findings is to introduce impartiality by having this type of case investigated and adjudi­cated on by those who have no stake in the outcome.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3,

131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

WHILST appreciating your coverage of my attempts to raise clinical concerns within NHS Lothian and their consequences, I would like to correct the impression given in your article on the basis of quotes from Paul Gray of NHS Scotland and from NHS Lothian that the formal complaint I have made relates only to one particular senior staff member within NHS Lothian ("NHS chief demands probe into baby unit complaint", The Herald, May 7).

In fact, the title and contents of both my initial formal complaint to Mr Gray and my subsequent submission containing extensive background documentary evidence make it very clear that my complaint relates to "the conduct of NHS Lothian and of a senior member of staff" - and not simply to one member of staff as NHS Lothian would without doubt prefer to describe it.

Meanwhile, I along with other members of the Patients First Scotland campaign group, await the outcome of this inquiry with interest - albeit with serious reservations, given that yet again a health board (NHS Lothian) has been mandated to investigate concerns about itself.

Dr Jane Hamilton,

c/o NHS Lothian,

2-4 Waterloo Gate,

Edinburgh.