Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does.

Your exposure that the proposed Urgent Care Centre at St Helier may only be open for just 12 hours a day, comes hot on the heels of numerous other very serious questions raised about the credibility of the Better Services, Better Value review.

With such an important omission from the consultation document, it is fast approaching the proportions of a "dodgy dossier".

Firstly, there were doubts about the statistics under-pinning the case for change.

They appear to be fundamentally flawed at best or deliberately adjusted to achieve the answers demanded by the coalition government. Since the doubts raised have not been challenged by the review board, we are left with no alternative but to accept that the data purporting to support the case for change, is at best suspect.

It begs the question, therefore, that if the data supporting the case is unreliable, why did the Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group decide that it was robust enough for it to go to consultation, thereby giving it their seal of approval and added credibility?

Then we discover that the local GPs are not at all happy about the proposed changes and that they felt effectively coerced into agreeing to the consultation process, because of the fear that the alternatives, unspecified, might be worse.

Judging by the comments reported in this paper, the GPs are taking the flack for the proposals.

Whilst this is not strictly fair, the government has succeeded in achieving its first objective, which was to drive a wedge between the GPs and their patients and thereby destroy the historic bond of trust.

Add to the exclusion of other key stakeholders - the nurses and the patient representatives etc - from the preparation of these proposals and the other changes being implemented at the same time, it does make for a very worrying scenario. It would be funny if it was not so serious, literally a matter of life and death.

As for the consultation document itself, it is full of opinions, aspirations, and motherhood & apple pie, with very little statistical or other evidence to support them. May be we can ask our two local MPs, Paul Burstow and Tom Brake, who voted for the enabling legislation in Parliament, to give a lead and make this consultation a little more meaningful and credible.

Cynics might say that the politicians are deliberately dismantling the core of the NHS, in order to create opportunities for the private providers, with MPs who voted for these changes on their boards, to walk in and help themselves to massive profits.

What are the chances that these companies will be based in some tax-haven, thereby avoiding paying taxes in this country?

May be our MPs can assure us that that is not what they voted for.

Dr V Sharma, via email

Send your letter to: letters@suttonguardian.co.uk.