YOU report a six per cent reduction in “bed blocking” (“One in 13 hospital beds taken by patients fit to leave”, The Herald, September 12) and state that bed blocking is the delayed discharge of people who are medically ready to leave hospital but have to wait for care arrangements to be made. In my local area the local authority-run care homes no longer have beds available for respite care as they are now being used to accommodate NHS patients waiting for care arrangements to be put in place.

What is the cost of looking after the elderly carers of dementia sufferers who can no longer cope without respite? What is the cost when the dementia sufferer then has to go into full-time care? It seems the health and social care partnerships are playing a form of whack-a-mole with the targets and finances of both the NHS and local authorities. The result may be a welcome one for the NHS but the cost – both human and financial – will become evident in social care.

Carol Vanzetta,

Blaeshill Road, East Kilbride.

I HEARD on the BBC national news on Thursday evening (September 13) that there were about a million young carers in England. On checking up I learn from the internet that there are more than 100,000 in Scotland, a number almost equal per head of population.

I had published on that same day a letter in your pages drawing attention to the state of our care system caused by a scandalous degree of underfunding. What kind of society are we, one in which we have so little concern for not only the sick and the elderly but for so many of our young people?

According to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in Scotland and The Scottish Young Carers Services Alliance “a young carer’s personal and physical development, physical and emotional health, as well as social opportunities can all be affected by the family situation and their caring role”.

Without the invaluable work of the aforementioned Trust and Alliance, and indeed others, the situation of these young people being forced to take on such a burden would be even more intolerable. However as I suggested in my earlier letter the answer is political but on this occasion I would ask where are the voices of our churches. It is high time that the Church of Scotland, for instance, became far more politically vociferous never minding the inevitable right-wing knee-jerk reaction of those for whom such a Christ-like stance would be unacceptable.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston.

YOUR front page story concerning the breast screening blunder which caused hundreds of women not to receive their final screening invitation contains many quotes on how “truly concerning” this is, and what a “serious and deeply concerning” failure it is (“Hundreds of women hit by breast screening bluner”, The Herald, September 14). Might I enquire of those individuals and organisations – where is your concern and distress for all the women in their seventies, eighties and and over who will NEVER receive another call to be screened? And for all the men and women who are now too old to be asked to take part in the bowel screening programme? Are we not to be “incredibly concerned” by this?

Perhaps one of those who decides on the screening priorities can explain why older persons are omitted from the screening schedules? It must surely be a cost-effective exercise to identify potential problems early, whatever the person’s age?

(Mrs) H. Shearer,

7 Avonhead Avenue, Cumbernauld.

I SHARE Max Cruickshank’s scepticism over guidelines on alcohol (Letters, September 14). He suggests we need to know the science behind drinking. I think not. The day I retired, after many years of enjoyable imbibing, often to excess, I decided to stop drinking alcohol completely. Overnight. The improvement in my health has been unexpectedly positive and pleasant, for all I know also delaying some of the inevitable effects of ageing. And life has proven to be no less enjoyable in the absence of the alcoholic haze, morning headaches, depression and poor sleep.

The suggestion of “two days off” is about as stupid as advocating only wearing a seat belt on even numbered days. Alcohol is a personal choice. But it also a toxin. There is no need to understand the science. Drink it if you wish, but accept the consequences to yourself and more importantly the effect on others. Like not wearing a seatbelt.

John Dunlop,

19 Wellington Lane, Ayr.

MORE than half of pregnant women in Scotland are obese, and this is causing a huge strain on midwives (“Most expectant mothers are overweight or obese for first time, finds report”, The Herald, September 12).

More than half of all Scots are either overweight or obese and it costs NHS Scotland around £1 billion. This amount would go a long way to training more doctors and hospital staff or improving other public services.

Perhaps our politicians should take a lead from Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson who lost seven stones in the past year and reversed his Type 2 diabetes. He is one politician who is not afraid to lose votes by confronting us all with our role in reducing the pressure on the NHS because if Labour is elected at the next election he has promised to lead a crusade against diabetes.

Nicola Sturgeon would certainly have galvanised her limp Programme for Government if it had included such a crusade, alongside her opposite number, expectant mum Ruth Davidson. I bet all MSPs would have been scrambling to support them.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.

RUTH Marr (Letters, September 11) is correct in congratulating the Scottish Government in ensuring that the NHS in Scotland provides on the whole a better service to its users than its English counterpart. But it could be better if properly funded and properly staffed. Unlike the NHS I don’t recall a single headline bemoaning a shortage of medical staff in the private sector.

We should not be forced to rely on medical staff trained abroad to prop up our NHS. It cannot be beyond the capability of a civil servant with a piece of paper and pencil to work out how many staff are needed and how many we must train to achieve optimum staffing levels yet we consistently fail to train enough. While able to enrol students from overseas, lack of capacity forces our universities and medical schools to consistently turn away well-qualified domestic candidates. Why? We never see headlines bemoaning a serious shortage of bankers, CEOs, MPs, lords, professors or university chancellors, judges or civil servants or GCHQ spooks yet we don’t produce enough medical staff. Why?

Just like poverty itself, the collapsing NHS is a deliberate construct. It is under-resourced simply because no matter how bad the NHS becomes the problems it creates for the general public will have no detrimental impact on those who make the decisions to keep it so. “There is no more money” they say. Tell that for example to Amazon.

Amazon paid just £1.7 million tax in the UK last year because it is allowed to declare the revenue of $11.3 billion from UK sales via a company in Luxemburg. UK executives shared bonuses of £47bn in 2017, coincidentally the same amount by which UK government debt increased during the same period.There is plenty of money it’s just in the wrong place.

The Establishment needs a reasonably healthy basically educated pool of workers to keep the lights on, to buy consumer goods and to die in their wars, end of story. The common herd are just that in the eyes of the Establishment a resource to be harvested. Perhaps a hard Brexit will crystallise matters and motivate the great unwashed to press for fundamental change starting with a properly resourced NHS.

David J Crawford,

85 Whittingehame Court,

1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.