TOM Herbert (Letters, October 19) raises the case for local administration of chemotherapy at Stobhill, Glasgow, highlighting the apparent disparity between services in different areas.

We have seen NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s figures for the number of patients in the Stobhill area, and their statements regarding clinical safety, both of which are no doubt provided in good faith but neither of which appear to have been independently verified.

To the layman Mr Herbert’s population data suggest higher density around Stobhill than around the Victoria (which does provide chemotherapy), and when we add the higher rates of deprivation, and incidence of – and mortality from – cancer we see a clear disconnect with the board’s figures. This anomaly was pointed out some time ago to the then Cabinet Secretary for Health, who clearly felt it should be investigated, but then the music stopped and that chair was re-allocated.

Several politicians have shown sympathy, but none has so far taken up the case against patients having to travel across Glasgow for treatment which could be provided closer to home (and which leaves them unfit for travel). The Scottish Government has sworn to tackle inequalities, to foster treatment closer to home, to relieve the pressure on our acute hospitals, to scrutinise service changes: there is no doubt they are busy but it would be comforting to think someone would “pause and consudder”, as Para Handy might say. Would they just ask “Why?”

James Sandeman,

Secretary, Scottish Health Campaigns Network, 3 Scone Place, Newton Mearns.