HAVING read letters about Dr Tim Pearson's compulsory retirement from the Friary Surgery, Richmond, I feel it necessary to add my view - which supports the action that the practice partners have taken.

I am a former patient of his and moved to the Quaker Lane surgery three years ago as a result of his treatment of myself and my young child (then under a year old).

As a first-time mother with a baby I think it is fair to expect that there will be some visits to a GP in the child's first year. However, I did not expect to be treated with such disdain and be made to feel neurotic.

I was actually advised by Dr Pearson, that I had a "sickly child".

Upon securing a specialist referral a diagnosis and treatment were given which resolved the situation, but only after four/five long months of struggling with symptoms and requesting such a referral.

I know a number of other patients have changed practices as a result of his treatment of them. I am glad all of his patients have not been treated in this way, but it is only fair to hear the other side of the story.

Angela Duncan, Richmond, North Yorkshire.

I AM writing to add my personal dismay at the treatment of Dr Tim Pearson, formerly of the Friary Surgery, in Richmond.

I have been both a partner in and an advisor to many partnerships over recent years and have never come across such unusual and apparently unwarranted behaviour on the part of the partners, in this case Drs Wallace and Paterson.

Partnership agreements regularly afford the partners a great deal of collective power but little personal protection. As such, they function predominantly on the basis of trust between the partners, a trust that has broken down in this case.

What bothers me most of all is this: if Drs Wallace and Paterson cannot be trusted in their business dealings, how far should we trust them with our health?

It seems the immediate reinstatement of Dr Pearson would be the most appropriate course of action followed, if Drs Wallace and Paterson deem it necessary, by a more humane dialogue about their differences.

I also feel a review of the partnership terms should be undertaken. Such a review should include the Friary patients, to give them confidence, as the most important stakeholders, that such events are not repeated.

Chris Lees, Scorton, North Yorkshire.