The two NHS responses to our MSP's letter require a degree in "reading between the lines" before the true meaning is deciphered. Apparently straightforward and reasonable sentences, on analysis, show a very different meaning.
I'll give one example from NHS Lothian's second reply to our MSP: a reply which, I'm sure you remember, took 6 months to arrive. Tomorrow I'll give another classic.
The MSP said, I think, "The important issue of Mrs Carr's suicide attempt and continuing self-harm are mentioned only in the last paragraph of a 5 page letter and then only obliquely."
Six months later the NHS managed to push out a reply which contained words like, "We didn't intend to dismiss Mrs Carr's suicide attempt but rather we responded to the points you raised in the context of the information provided by the clinical team."
I must admit this is a classic of its type. What the NHS replier is really saying is,"You asked about Mrs Carr's suicide etc but the clinical team did not give me any information about the suicide and so I was unable to answer your question." If we accept that the replier was not given any information about the suicide the replier could, and should, have gone back to the clinicians and insisted that they give appropriate information. Of course, this didn't happen because they did not want to answer the question.
This gets even better. Having explained in the second letter why there was no information in the first letter about Mrs Carr's suicide etc the replier still did not answer the question in the second letter. I hope you followed that.
Therefore, despite having been asked twice, the NHS in two letters avoided saying anything about Mrs Carr's suicide attempt and on-going risk of self-harm although they explain (if you believe it) why they didn't answer in letter 1.
There really should be an award for writing in such an apparently clear and rasonable way but actuaklly in a very obstructive manner.