Those mourning the absence of the English football team from Euro 2008 have a new spectator sport to distract them: the battle between health ministers and the medical profession over polyclinics, the Department of Health's brave new vision for healthcare.

Doctors argue that the Government is adopting a Steve McClaren approach, with ill-conceived tactics that will end in tears; while politicians accuse the medics of acting like prima donnas - interested only in themselves, while currying favour with patients by kissing the NHS club badge.

The debate boils down to this. Last year's review by Lord Darzi of Denham into healthcare in London suggested the development of new facilities to increase the range of services for patients - polyclinics.

The Government is mightily impressed with this idea and wants to run with it the length and breadth of England. The medical profession isn't, and wants to trip it up.

Shiny new facilities, extended opening hours, multiple services under one roof? What's not to like?

Quite a lot, in fact. Open-all-hours surgeries may appeal to time-pressed, worried-well commuters. But to the most needy users - young families, the chronically sick, the elderly - geographical convenience is more important. Centralised services may make impressive buildings and economic sense, but are little use to Zimmer-frame-hampered patients.

Another disadvantage is the loss of continuity. It may be difficult to establish doctor-patient rapport in a polyclinic, given the number of staff, their shift patterns and the facelessness of the service.

Cynics say that continuity is less sacred than the medical profession would have you believe - and, if the worst of a patient's problems is an ingrowing toenail, they may have a point. But for patients with multipathology - and, in our ageing society, that is a significant constituency - continuity is key. With it, patients have a clear point of reference, someone with his finger on the physical and metaphorical pulse; without it, there is a real risk of duplication, omission and disintegrated care.

“Care” is a killer word in the polyclinic debate. A clear message from countless patient-satisfaction surveys is that, while GPs may not always be able to cure, they do care. Whether this key facet of general practice will be retained in the new era remains to be seen. There are certainly concerns that the threat of privatisation - which many believe goes hand in hand with polyclinics - could make staff and managers focus more on income than illness.

Of course, ministers have ready answers to these objections. To a degree, they have a point: the new plans might work well for some people in some areas. They would argue that much of the opposition is simply the reflex rant of a profession notorious for its resistance to change - although this is not surprising if the change involves being coerced into new working patterns or environments, or seeing your lovingly nurtured patient list swallowed up by the corporate clinic down the road.

But the Department of Health might do well to look behind the rhetoric to ask why we medics - backed by the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the King's Fund and many patients - are quite so sceptical. Partly, it's change fatigue. Doctors emerge from one set of time-consuming reforms to find that another pile has landed on their desks - each reinventing the wheel and distracting from patient care. Then there is the feeling that we are being bullied. GPs are still licking their wounds from the fight with the Government over extended opening, in which they were given a choice between a slap round the face and a doing-over with a baseball bat.

These latest changes feel as if they are being imposed from above. Then there is a nagging suspicion that the polyclinic is just another bright idea. One which, like NHS Direct, walk-in centres, choose and book, computerised records, smacks of expensive, focus-group-driven initiatives, pandering to those with plenty of health wants but few genuine health needs.

Most of all, though, the medical profession's fire is fuelled by anxiety that the precious fundamentals of traditional healthcare - personalised care, continuity and patient advocacy - are in jeopardy. The polyclinic is perceived as a threat to the heart and soul of general practice.

A brief scroll down the GP forums confirms this - “One-to-one GP care will be lost forever”, “The structure of family medicine in this country is being destroyed” and “This is the death knell for general practice”. This depth of feeling won't be appeased by any semantic re-jigging of the concept - politicians should be less fixated on gratuitous innovation and more appreciative of what they have already. Otherwise, they will score an own goal that will relegate traditional general practice to the status of the English football team: talented, sorely missed and criminally redundant.

Dr Keith Hopcroft is a GP in Essex

Times Recommends

• How did she get the insurance?
• Protesting against Charles? Bonkers
• Will a degree help an anxious patient?