Madam, - Reading Michael Cullen's piece (July 24th) defending co-location stirred unease which was difficult to immediately explain.
Was it the stern lecture-type style or the apparent lack of compassion or just the deliberate sidestepping of the real issue at the heart of the concerns previously expressed by other observers?
And that is inequity. What is being planned not only fails to address the major issue of inequity of access to healthcare, but the co-location plan interweaves it into the fabric of the system.
As private for-profit activity increases, inequality does too, for it cannot possibly be any other way under the proposals that are being wedged into place despite widespread concerns.
The penultimate paragraph of the piece was indeed chilling in as much as a private entity with a vested interest was declaring knowingly that unless we swallowed the co-location plan "there will be little or no hope of any similar public facilities provided in our generation".
In other words, if we refuse to accept a system that will discriminate and create inequity, then we can expect no other attempts to improve our current struggling health care system. Mr Cullen appears to be very close to the centre of power when such statements can be so stridently made.
As an unaccountable entity, how close must be a worry. Whose hand is really on the tiller? - Yours, etc,
JIM O'SULLIVAN, Rathedmond, Sligo.
Madam, - Contrary to Michael Cullen's view, I believe the starting point to improve the public system is not privatisation. We could start by better standard local hospital management, increased capacity and ensuring that public hospitals are for treating patients. At present the public hospital system is completely dysfunctional, ineffective and patient-hostile. No amount of national treatment purchase funding a new consultant contract or PR hype of world class service will substitute for this. - Yours, etc
MICHAEL O'KEEFFE, Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, Mater Hospital, Dublin 7.