Dear Editor,

Mr Blair argues that an independent body would slow down reform in the NHS. Perhaps that is where the problem lies.

Politicians care about having results to show by the next general election. But improving the health of the nation takes decades. For example, a successful smoking cessation campaign will not result in a reduction of lung cancer for over 30 years.

Far too many new initiatives costing millions of pounds have been rushed through with many U-turns. Money has been wasted and the NHS is in record debt. There is a general consensus among health care professionals that there has been far too much political interference in the running of the NHS. Whilst we as a profession are not averse to change, any reform introduced has to be tested and thoroughly thought out.

An independent body to control the NHS would make sense, especially if it is held accountable to the people that matter the most, the public.

Your sincerely,

Dr Danny Lim,
Medical doctor
London

Dr Danny Lim, London, UK

I am afraid on this one the Prime Miniser has it right.

You cannot be spending taxpayer's money on something that does not have oversight that is directly accountable to the taxpayers.

In short, a Minister ought to be in charge, not a nameless, faceless "Board" who is accountable to no one.

In addition to that, the Prime Minister is spot on as well when he says that a Board would be unlikely to make difficult decisions when they come up, as they certainly will.

Jim, Newcastle, UK

Around 34,000 people a year die unnecessarily in today's NHS hospitals and another 25,000 per year are unecessarily permanently disabled. I suggest that the families of these 59,000 people would not agree with Blair and Hewitt that New Labour's NHS reforms have been a huge success.

neil glass, london, UK