Indy could help us end bed blocking and reduce waiting times
Yet GP surgery waiting rooms are seldom full.
To me, an ageing GP, the answer to these problems is clear and it begins with an independent Scottish government with the same borrowing powers as Westminster.
Then we could end bed blocking by setting up convalescent homes to receive those patients no longer acutely ill but in need of gradually increasing activity until they are fit to return home or enter long-term care homes.
We used to have them. They were staffed by nurses and physiotherapists but had visiting doctors as required and carers and friends were welcome visitors because they could discuss the next step out of convalescence, back to their own homes.
As for General Practice, it is clear that home visits by what used to be called your 'family doctor' are almost non-existent, though certainly in my practice, acute illness is seen and dealt with almost immediately by the doctor on call, though to see the doctor of your choice may mean that you wait a week or more. It is different but appears to work well and if other practices do the same I see no reason to rubbish the care offered. However people vote with their feet and the habit of using the nearest hospital Accident and Emergency department because it is convenient is now endemic.
Why has this happened?
If the one-stop shop is the way patients prefer to be treated, perhaps there should be more Accident and Emergency departments in every hospital or allow GPs immediate access to an A&E department.
Elizabeth Scott, Edinburgh.
Read more letters
New abortion law is so wrong
On Wednesday (June 18) a new legislation was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of 242 MPs who were heard cheering as the result was announced.
At the moment abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, which in itself is utterly ludicrous. I have personally known babies that have been born at 24 weeks and have grown to lead healthy adult lives, some now with children of their own. The NHS is wonderful when it comes to looking after premature babies, moving heaven and earth to save their precious lives. Now, as of yesterday the law is to be changed and decriminalised, which will allow abortion up to the day before birth at nine months. This is barbaric, it is inhuman and violates the human rights of the unborn healthy child.
The majority of supporting MPs were Labour and have said the new law is in place to remove the threat of investigation on the mother of the child. What about the rights of the viable child? What about the many parents who have suffered multiple miscarriages and those who can't have biological children, how does this barbaric decision affect their mental health?
I agree with abortion in the very early stages (under 20 weeks) of pregnancy, if the health of the mother is at critical risk or the child was to be born with profound, life-limiting disabilities or in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape. That choice must always be permitted and is the decision of the mother.
However, this new law is wrong on every level, it is depraved and disgusting.
Conrad Ritchie, Fraserburgh.
Don't blame CalMac
You headline Peter Wright's letter (June 19) with the words 'What planet is CalMac on?'
Please will you learn to be more accurate about where the origins of the ongoing ferry shambles lie? CalMac has no responsibility for this bourach, it lies entirely with Caledonian Marine Assets Limited, its chief executive, and every member of its board, who should all have been sacked long ago.
Of course, Transport Scotland and, ultimately, the Scottish Government have the final responsibility, but it is certainly not their fault. Oh, no! A big boy did it and ran away!
How the blinkered SNP supporters think this party could run a country, when it has presided over this debacle for over a decade now, is beyond me.
John NE Rankin, Bridge of Allan.
Bus switch makes no sense
Driving around Paisley and local area one notices that the local bus company appears to be using all-electric buses. Having a company in Falkirk that makes them, why were its buses sourced from Japan? The costs of shipping must add greatly to the costs. I also understand Renfrew Council gave the bus company a large grant to purchase said buses. Surely some joined-up thinking is required here?
Robert Mitchell, Elderslie.
Lorna Slater (Image: PA)
Artificial ingratiation
Opposing a motion to the Scottish Parliament titled Demanding a Better Deal for Taxpayers in Scotland, Green MSP Lorna Slater presented the case that, once the benefits of various policies such as "free" prescriptions, bus travel, tuition fees and social care were taken into account and despite higher income tax rates, people in Scotland are generally better off than people in England. To prove her point, she had put her thesis into "an AI" which confirmed her view. If the output from AI was capable of unequivocally defining what is true, it would strengthen her argument; however, it does not have that capability.
Troubled by two recent incidences where ChatGPT had not just given me wrong information but made up "facts" (a phenomenon known as "hallucination"), I challenged ChatGPT why it does that. Its response was enlightening and included the following: "It was trained to sound helpful – not to know the truth. So, when you ask a question, it tries to give you the kind of answer it thinks you want – even if it has to guess."
I find it amusing that Lorna Slater, a politician, turned to AI to justify her position. After all, the text quoted above would also be a reasonable description of most politicians.
George Rennie, Inverness.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
Assisted dying is a step closer to being made legal in England and Wales after the proposed legislation cleared the House of Commons in a historic vote – albeit with a narrower majority. More than 300 MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Yes campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation has taken another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Leader Live
18 minutes ago
- Leader Live
ADHD waiting list led to rise in unregulated private providers
The ADHD taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report saying the system for diagnosing and managing ADHD needs to be overhauled. At the moment, ADHD assessment and treatment in England is provided by highly specialised doctors in secondary care. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts behind the study said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long' and demand on services is 'very likely' to continue to rise. The taskforce concluded that ADHD is not solely the remit of the NHS and other health providers, with schools being vital for identifying and meeting needs at an early stage. And while a clinical diagnosis of ADHD via the NHS is required if a person needs medication, early support can still be provided to others. The report said: 'We need timely recognition and early support of suspected ADHD and neurodivergence across all settings. 'This is especially important in schools and the early years, to prevent adverse impacts and costly outcomes in the future. This should be needs-led and not require a clinical diagnosis.' The report also suggested there is no evidence of over-diagnosis of ADHD in the UK. It argued: 'England and the rest of the UK have much lower service recognition and treatment rates of ADHD diagnosis compared with other European countries. 'Recent data show a very high level of under-recognition and under-treatment of strictly diagnosed ADHD, with significant inequalities in access to care.' The report also addressed concerns about potential 'over-medicalisation and over-diagnosis', including worries that people are self-diagnosing ADHD based on information from social media. However, the report, said that 'currently there is no good evidence on what percentage of those waiting to see a clinician have self-diagnosed ADHD using social media and eventually meet or do not meet ADHD diagnostic criteria after a high-quality assessment. 'We only know currently that in England, recognised rates of ADHD are lower than the expected prevalence of ADHD.' Currently, the estimated economic costs of not treating ADHD are around £17 billion to the UK economy, the report went on. This includes through lower tax contributions, people needing state benefits and more likely to be not in education, employment or training, or who are long-term unemployed. 'Many of these costs are avoidable, as with appropriate, early support, people with ADHD can thrive,' it said. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'The recommendations put forward by the taskforce will require action across Government and cross-sector organisations to make the necessary changes to improve the lives of people with ADHD. 'We need to get this right, to make sure people get early diagnosis and support, not just in the NHS but across society.' Dr Adrian James, NHS England's medical director for mental health and neurodiversity, said: 'We know that too many people with ADHD have been waiting for too long for support, which is why we launched the taskforce last year to help respond to the significant growth in the need for care. 'It is clear that much more needs to be done to improve ADHD assessment and care in England and ensure people can get a timely diagnosis, and we welcome the findings from the interim report, and look forward to its final conclusions later this year.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'Lord Darzi's report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis. 'We welcome the publication of the ADHD Taskforce's interim report, which provides valuable insights into the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including access to services and support.' The NHS has launched publicly-available data collection on ADHD referrals and waiting times to help local teams better understand how they are performing. By March 2026, the Government also aims for six in 10 pupils to have access to a mental health support team in school.
Leader Live
18 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
A majority of MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation took another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
