We are not commandos, but neither are we punch-bags.PATRICK A COLLINGBORN Plymouth Bush's war record Sir: In declaring his conscientious objections to the war in Vietnam, Robert Sather (letter, 17 February) acted honourably. To try to limit such intervention to three minutes seems misguided and I never carried a stop-watch.Normally by this stage the patient is unlikely to be co-operative so may be given a sedative, often by injection. However if s/he is already on heavy doses care needs to be taken to ensure that further medication is wise. Of course attempts are made to "talk the patient down" but these may not work. We are then left with a highly distressed patient, tense staff and the other patients on the ward probably upset too.Working in psychiatry does carry its risks and I would ask people to recognise that psychiatric staff do an emotionally demanding and potentially hazardous job before condemning them. Lying on a patient to immobilise his hands and feet for for 25 minutes, as in the case you report, would be unusual but not for ten minutes or so. He has no need to apologise.DUNCAN CARMICHAEL Cape Town, South Africa Hazardous nursing Sir: I first worked in the National Health Service in 1957 as a student psychiatric nurse.

I subsequently worked as a qualified nurse and social worker in a number of settings such as the community, prisons and rehabilitation units as well as hospitals. I was never aware of institutionalised racism in any of these settings although I did meet a few individual staff members who may have been racist ("Patient's death 'reveals institutional racism in NHS' ", 13 February).I have been required to control or subdue patients/clients, which is often difficult to do on one's own and have found that lying bodily on a patient is sometimes the safest way to do so both for the patient and myself. But it is far from clear that Blair was wrong to give his support to Bush and to lend Britain's moral authority to the venture. It is a pity that Bush is now trying to pass blame for the decision to go to war on to the intelligence services, and Blair seems to have fallen into the same trap.The Iraq war was morally doubtful, but Blair supported it for honourable reasons.

Should he support the long-standing "special relationship" started by Roosevelt and Churchill in the Second World War, and reinforced by Reagan's support of Thatcher during the Falklands War? Or should he turn his back on the former ally, ignoring the heartfelt request for help? If so, what would the US do in future emergencies?Cook was right to resign from the Blair cabinet in protest at Bush's spurning of the United Nations Only the UN could give moral authority for the war. These are two massive achievements.Did Blair make a mistake in backing the Americans in Iraq? Of course he did, but there were good reasons for doing so The war in Iraq would have happened without Blair's support. It was Republican Party policy to effect "regime change" in Iraq.Blair had to make a choice. As a native of Edinburgh, of which Robin Cook is an elected representative, I feel Cook's tirade against Blair (Opinion, 11 February) needs to be countered.To his eternal credit, Blair gave back to the Scots their own parliament, and responsibility for Scottish affairs is back where it belongs - in Edinburgh. Blair has successfully tackled the running sore of Northern Ireland. But that apparently is less important than ordering the world for the convenience of trading companies.The alternative solution is that the democratic nation states should regain control over their territories and borders, and that those who wish to trade across borders should pay the full costs of doing so - social, environmental, and also administrative.Dr D R COOPER Maidenhead, Berkshire Time to back Blair Sir: It is time to stand up and support Tony Blair. Such benefits are not optional extras, but provide an essential safety net in "free" labour markets with their built-in insecurities.If EU citizens are to have their freedom of movement curtailed, directly or indirectly, there should be compensating restrictions on the movement of capital to accession countries.

If not, the EU will be demonstrating once again that its primary function is to serve the interests of the already wealthy, not those of ordinary citizens. The achievements since 2001 need to be built on, not derided.j.hari independent.co.uk More from Johann Hari. The arts, obviously, have to be paid for by someone. Sometimes they are just paid for by their audience - as far as I know, no one has yet suggested subsidising the publication of novels The arts, obviously, have to be paid for by someone. But sometimes, it looks as if an art form couldn't keep going on the money handed over by the people who actually like it. Like most countries, we find it necessary to look for other sources of income to keep museums, theatres, and opera houses going That could come from wealthy individual sponsors.