I am writing to you in regard to my father, [name], who is scheduled to undergo an urgent procedure at your hospital on [date].
My father is very elderly, at age 95, and clearly, as such, a fragile and vulnerable individual. There is a very real possibility that he may not survive the procedure he is scheduled to undergo, a risk I am obviously determined to mitigate as much as is possible, as I am sure you are too.
Given my father's age and medical challenges, the hospital has already agreed it would be inappropriate in these circumstances to ask him to "self-isolate" around the operation, especially as he is fully vaccinated.
However, the hospital continues to insist - against my express wishes and that of the rest of the family - that my father receives a PCR test prior to undergoing this procedure, stating that this is the Trust's "policy". Please note I have been unable to find any written documentation pertaining to this alleged policy, and it has only been communicated to me verbally.
However, even if such written documentation exists, internal policies of institutions cannot trump the laws of the land in which they reside, and multiple binding laws concerning medical ethics and human rights underscore the rights of individuals and their families to decline any diagnostic offered to them, without incurring any kind of penalty or disadvantage, Put simply, it is illegal to predicate my father's surgery on a test he does not wish to receive, and his right to decline this test is protected by UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which states at Article 6, Section 1:
"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice." 
This is underpinned by the strict principles of informed consent that the General Medical Council prescribes to the NHS, as per the Montgomery ruling , which makes abundantly clear that a patient's consent must always be offered freely; based on adequate information; and in the absence of any coercion.
Preconditioning my father's surgery on a PCR test is patently coercive, and, therefore, would void his consent, even if offered.
We as his family do not wish my father to receive a PCR test, due to the multiple dangers and inadequacies of this test. In the first instance, the test's own inventor, Nobel-prize winning scientist, Kary B. Mullis, stated that his test must never be used as a reliable diagnostic for the presence of viral disease. "PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all", Mullis said .
The unreliability and concomitant dangers of the PCR were starkly illustrated in the USA in 2007, when a pertussis epidemic was falsely declared on the basis of PCR testing . Nearly a year later, the entire episode was declared a false alarm, since not a single case of pertussis was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the individuals who tested positive on the PCR were probably afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold. According to epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, this episode occurred because too much faith was placed in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test - the PCR test - that led them astray.
Reflecting on the situation, Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.
"The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives," Dr. Petti said. "No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on PCR." 
It is critical that the hospital management understands the mechanism by which PCR tests operate, which is to amplify results many times. If results are amplified less than about 35 times, no-one will test positive. If they are amplified 60 times, everyone will. As the PCR test's inventor, Mr. Mullis, clarified: "With the PCR, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn't tell you that you're sick." 
This being the case, neither myself nor my father wishes for him to receive this test, which could create unnecessary panic and further delays to surgery should he test positive - despite the fact, as I have detailed, a positive PCR result is no reliable indicator of the presence of infectious viral disease.
I would appreciate your prompt written assurance that no further pressure will be exerted upon my father or our family regarding the PCR test, and that he will be able to proceed with his urgent surgery on [date[ in the absence of PCR testing.
I look forward to hearing from you.