IN REPLY to A. Samuels (letters 28th March) may I say my interest in justice for doctors is based on personal experience of the care and dedication extended to me over many years.

This includes some twenty operations, including by-pass surgery, diabetes, and cancer and continual monitoring on an on-going bypass.

Whereas his interest is ideologically based in line with Tory party desires to privatise the NHS; they have always been against it.

The increase in doctors’ basic pay, when set against the hours required to work effectively means less reward for hours on duty.

Pure sleight of hand. Long hours, mean tired doctors, and a risk to patients.

What we need is more doctors, properly paid. But of course that would mean more funding for the NHS, absolute anathema to Tory policy.

A. Samuels accuses me of snide remarks, but with respect may I point out that it was he who first accused me of ‘political rant’, repeated again in his current letter.

A typical example of ‘consider not the mote someone else’s eye, but consider the beam in your own’.

Our NHS is something that should be treasured by all, and above political ideology, but for a party that is always seeking ways to destroy it, that is too big a pill to swallow.

Should I be unfortunate enough to require treatment during any future doctors strike, may I have as much fortitude to bear it, as the doctors have shown in the face of Hunt's attack on their pay and conditions.

The public are solidly behind the doctors, Hunt should settle on a proper basis, or go.

To force someone to accept a contract must surely be a contradiction in terms.

A contract is by mutual agreement between interested parties, not forced by one on the other.

Maybe litigation is called for.

But I would apologise to A.Samuels for upsetting his tender susceptibilities.

Mr D R SMITH

Bitterne

Southampton