In your story about the Danes coming to my rescue when Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust denied any treatment here for kidney cancer (Oxford Mail, February 14), I should point out that not merely is my wife Danish but she lives and works in Denmark.

She has done so for many years, either there or in a representative capacity abroad, and because she is resident, that has given me the possibility of receiving medication there.

I have visited Denmark for almost 20 years and we may retire there.

The reasons given by Dr Ljuba Stirzaker, the PCT's consultant in healthcare priorities, in Martyn Sumner's case (Oxford Mail, February 9), are specious.

How can he make himself "exceptional" when the criterion is so vague?

We are all exceptional, at least to ourselves and to those near us. The PCT's own definition is mighty hard to understand.

It is irrelevant to tell us how much the PCT has to spend per head, as if to say that that is our individual entitlement.

Should Mr Sumner calculate his entitlement to treatment based on that figure, multiplied by the number of years he has been making NHS contributions?

This is utter nonsense. If Mrs Stirzacker meant that this figure is poor when compared with other PCTs, the question must obviously be why is this so, and why is she not fighting for a larger slice of the cake?

I gather that Mrs Stirzacker has told Mr Sumner and others that if the PCT pays for them, it cannot pay for the treatment of others.

That is self-evident, given that the amount in the pot is limited.

But why is Mr Sumner denied treatment when someone is granted it? His condition is life-threatening.

Prescribing a suitable drug, especially one that is regarded by oncologists abroad as relatively standard and perhaps by many in this country as a treatment that will become regular in the future, cannot be denied on purely economic grounds. This is not some wild, speculative course of action as the PCT suggests.

If the medication fails to work, it makes sense to discontinue it, but present trials appear to have a success rate of between 30 and 40 per cent.

Oxford is said to be a leading centre for cancer research and extensive building work is being undertaken here to bolster its reputation.

It is one thing to be at the front line in the battle against cancer, but does it follow that present sufferers should be allowed to die while they wait for expensive developments to be explored in the future?

Why should the research scientists bother to seek new drugs if the PCT refuses them to be used on spurious grounds?

RICHARD RAMSEY Stanley Road Oxford