YOUR edition today left me rather perplexed in the manner in which GPs were mentioned.

Thus we have Mr Murphy pledging in Scottish Labour's manifesto that, should Labour form a government in May, he will push votes through the Scottish Parliament before the Holyrood elections in 2016, which will bring 500 additional GPs to Scotland ("Murphy to confront SNP with spending challenge", The Herald, April 20). On the other hand, your Letters Pages provide a different scenario as R Russell Smith highlights the looming shortage of GPs by 2020.

As a GP's wife for more than 30 years, I have witnessed how the changing demands of general practice have impacted on those GPs I know. One GP friend aged 55 would love to retire, but will not as her practice cannot find locums let alone a replacement partner. In her letter Rosemary Leslie invites GPs to remember that general practice is a vocation and that perhaps is at the heart of the matter. Whilst historically this may have been so, I do not believe that it remains so for many young GPs.

My husband's generation more often than not lived within their practice boundaries and accepted doing all their own on-call duties - it was rare to find a deputising service that covered outwith larger population centres. However, the removal of the requirement to provide 24-hour cover has allowed younger GPs to view general practice as simply a job to provide an income, like any other. Indeed I know of one practice where patients calling after 5.30 pm are told to call NHS 24 after 6pm (this allows the doctors to finish sharp and get home without late calls).

Recent changes to the GP pension coupled with annual appraisal and a five-yearly revalidation cycle may have tipped older GPs towards retiral earlier than expected, not to mention the demands to meet Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) targets and enhanced services. It is easy to see why many do not view general practice as a vocation but as a business.

Even in the out- of-hours service, there are problems recruiting GPs; many of those who provide such out-of-hours cover are older, with very few young GPs involved. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Perhaps if Mr Murphy could stop the exodus of GPs to Australia, he may be able to source the 500 extra, but I rather think his pledge is easier to articulate than implement; but this is election time.

Yvonne M Russell,

56 Hamilton Street,

Larkhall.

IT was with great interest that I read the letter from Dr David Mathie (April 16). I agree wholeheartedly with the points that he makes and share his dismay at the apparent failure of our politicians to face the reality of the current manpower crisis in general practice. The Scottish Government continues to promote the plan to extend working hours and increase the availability of GP services as though the problem will look after itself. Where do politicians live? All over Scotland, health boards are struggling to provide patients with basic GP services when increasing numbers of GP posts remain unfilled. Disenchanted doctors, weary of a target-driven culture, are retiring in droves.

In my practice, I receive emails every week from colleagues who are desperate to find locum cover. This is in stark contrast to the situation a decade ago when every GP partnership vacancy was hotly contested. Proposals to encourage recruitment will do nothing to alleviate the crisis we are now facing. Doctors are needed today, not in 10 years.

Innovative solutions have saved general practice in the past and could come to the rescue again. In the early 1970s, the highly successful Doctors' Retainer scheme was introduced to provide educational and financial support to doctors who have domestic responsibilities, in recognition that a significant number were being lost to the profession when they failed to return to work after a career break. In the 1990s, the problem of recruitment and retention in remote areas was solved by the introduction of the GP Associate scheme which allowed single-handed GPs some relief from their practices - often for the first time in decades.

In the past, retired GPs commonly carried out part-time locum work, providing invaluable support to practices at holiday times or in the case of illness. As Dr Mathie points out, the complexity of appraisal and professional revalidation, coupled with the financial outlay of maintaining registration and medical defence fees, makes this a very unattractive prospect to doctors who need to reduce their workload but have kept their skills intact. There will never be a better time for this wealth of clinical experience to be re-mobilised within the NHS. In the midst of election frenzy, where is the political will to free up this valuable resource? Perhaps our candidates should remember that disgruntled patients are voters as well.

Dr Anne Lindsay,

Glenoonah, Kippen, Stirling.