We thank Patel for eloquently detailing the foundations of an argument for an independent NHS. As Medical and Law undergraduates, we feel this has reopened a Pandora’s box of much-needed debate. While the topic is vast and our Letter short, we wish to present further points for consideration. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed NHS shortcomings in its inability to adapt to stresses of this magnitude, to protect both patients and staff. Having time and again been used as a political pawn, the NHS has been brutally kicked around, arguably rendering it too weary to continue as a public body. Patel’s article makes the comparison between the judiciary protecting human rights and the NHS protecting human lives. However, it does not consider that these issues are heavily intertwined. The right to life is the most fundamental human right, with no derogations permissible. Additionally, the right to health is protected under Article 12 of the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These strengthen Patel’s argument for an independent NHS. Indeed its removal from Government hands would serve to recognise the NHS as a fundamental British institution that protects our health, just as the judiciary protects our rights. In the Editorial associated with Patel’s article, Abbasi comments that ‘the practicalities [of an independent NHS] seem impossible to navigate’. Indeed Patel’s essay does not provide acknowledgement that regardless of whether it becomes independent, the NHS will always remain a political issue; the NHS is after all, politics’ child. While the judiciary is independent under the separation of powers, the Supreme Court still rules on extremely prominent political issues. Similarly, the NHS will remain subject to political scrutiny and pressure. The issue of NHS independence is complex and ongoing, and is likely to continue well into our careers as a doctor and lawyer.

中文翻译：

---

NHS 能真正独立吗？

我们感谢帕特尔雄辩地详细说明了独立 NHS 的论据基础。作为医学和法律专业的本科生，我们认为这重新打开了急需辩论的潘多拉魔盒。虽然这个话题很大，我们的信很短，但我们希望提出更多的观点供考虑。COVID-19 大流行暴露了 NHS 无法适应如此大的压力以保护患者和工作人员的缺点。一次又一次地被用作政治棋子，NHS 被残酷地踢了一脚，可以说它已经厌倦了继续作为一个公共机构。帕特尔的文章将司法保护人权与NHS保护人的生命进行了比较。然而，它并不认为这些问题是相互交织的。生命权是最基本的人权，不允许有任何减损。此外，健康权受到《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第 12 条的保护。这些强化了帕特尔关于建立独立 NHS 的论点。事实上，将其从政府手中移除将有助于承认 NHS 作为保护我们健康的基本英国机构，就像司法机构保护我们的权利一样。在与帕特尔文章相关的社论中，阿巴西评论说“[独立 NHS] 的实用性似乎无法驾驭”。事实上，帕特尔的文章并没有承认，无论是否独立，NHS 始终是一个政治问题；NHS 毕竟是政治的孩子。司法机关在三权分立下独立，最高法院仍然对极其突出的政治问题作出裁决。同样，NHS 仍将受到政治审查和压力。NHS 独立性问题复杂且持续存在，并且很可能会在我们作为医生和律师的职业生涯中继续存在。