Letter: Poor evidence

I HAVE read Michael Parkins' letter (4 September) a few times and it seems to me to be suggesting that the Scottish Government should be selective in the lives that are to be saved by a progressive health programme, which must include a curb on excessive alcohol consumption.

The lives of all our fellow citizens is sacred and any that are at risk and that can be saved by responsible government, no matter the citizens' contribution to society, is a huge and caring step forward. Notwithstanding the direct impact of alcohol on mortality, the beleaguered NHS will, I am sure, welcome any decline in patients suffering from alcohol abuse. Such a decline will free up money to help save possibly more than 50 lives threatened by many another sinister disease that is not too choosy about whom it attacks.

DOUGLAS S BRUCE

Stonefield

Portree, Isle of Skye

To JUSTIFY proposing a minimum price of 45p per unit for alcoholic drinks, the Scottish Government claims this would lead to 50 fewer deaths, 1,222 fewer healthcare admissions, a 5.5 million reduction in hospital costs, 22,900 fewer days' absence from work in one year and a significant reduction in violent crime.

These are all worthy objectives, but for a country that was involved in developing the concept of logic and reason, the question must be asked, where is the evidence on which these proposed outcomes are based?

Immediate suspicion is cast on these figures because they are too precise to relate to human behaviour and they are derived from speculative proposals outlined by Sheffield University which has been revised and criticised as unsound. Also, the university failed to factor in alcoholic drinks such as Buckfast, which is consumed at significant levels in Scotland.

Although Buckfast is only one alcoholic product, it is the example that proves the rule and which provides the evidence that an increase in price of alcoholic drinks is unlikely to reduce consumption. About two years ago a 700ml bottle of Buckfast cost about 5. Today, at a promotional price, a bottle costs 7.29. Incidentally, at 45p per unit a bottle of Buckfast could be reduced to 4.73 with unimaginable consequences in terms of deaths and social cost if the government's figures are correct.

In general, good laws are based on good evidence. The evidence for a minimum price is not convincing and will be difficult to defend in a reasonable manner.

PROFESSOR EMERITUS GEOFF PALMER

Waulkmill Drive

Penicuik, Midlothian