May I congratulate you on uniting the notoriously divided profession of pharmacy? The multiples and independents have previously held each other in suspicion but I am sure your article and comment of October 22 will unite the profession as few issues have in the past.

As an independent pharmacy owner, even I feel it necessary to defend multiples against the charges you have made against them. The information that you foresee them selling to insurance companies and the like is already in their hands and has been for more than a decade. The computerisation of patients' medication records has been standard practice in pharmacy for that time and the Data Protection Act and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Code of Ethics have safeguarded the public. I see no risk in extending only slightly the information that pharmacists have access to.

Let's keep to the point of Community Pharmacy Scotland's argument: pharmacists simply want basic information to help patients, especially in circumstances when the patients may be unable to provide it themselves. As to concern about the security of the IT systems, large amounts of patient-sensitive data are transferred this way already. This is not a new system for pharmacy, it is simply linking us to an existing network.

Stephen McCormick MRPS, 15 Glencraig Street, Drongan, Ayrshire.

The last bastion of confidentiality between the individual and a society that demands scrutiny of its citizens in the interests of its own security and in the pursuit of a risk-free existence is the medical record held by ones personal general practitioner.

Scottish patients should think long and hard before surrendering this right to absolute confidentiality, even if the latest attack upon its integrity comes from respected pharmacist colleagues.

Dr Brian D Keighley, Hector Cottage, Banker's Brae, Balfron, Stirlingshire.

As a GP who has good and close working relationships with local community pharmacists, I would be keen to make some observations on your front-page article. The term "call as GPs hand over more work" is misleading. The new pharmacy contract was negotiated directly between the government and the pharmacy profession. The extended role was part of that negotiation. GPs were not involved in that process.

Close working between the professions can only enhance patient care, with skills being complementary between a GP and a pharmacist.

The debate regarding records also works both ways - at present there is no mechanism for consultations with a pharmacist becoming part of the patient record.

Dr Gregor Purdie, GP, Gardenhill Primary Care Centre, Castle-Douglas.

I note with interest the resignation of the third chief executive of NHS24 after only six months in post. The reason given was "other commitments", but is the real reason not that the whole concept of NHS24 was flawed from its inception?

Prior to NHS24, local areas provided out-of-hours care through GP co-operatives that were locally based, staffed by local GPs and nurses who spoke to patients on the telephone, assessed the problem and initiated either a visit, attendance at the centre or medical advice. Being locally based, there was excellent communication and the employees of the service were familiar with the patients and the geography.

With more financial resources and more people, NHS24 will improve, but it will never be better than what was in place before. Unfortunately, when a bureaucracy is put in place it is difficult to dismantle, and until that bold decision is made NHS24 will move from crisis to crisis.

Dr A G Woodburn, 12 East King Street, Helensburgh.