Regarding the current public consultation on the proposed closure of 4 community hospitals (Paignton, Dartmouth, Ashburton/Buckfastleigh and Bovey Tracey) by the S Devon & Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group and their replacement with more care at home and in local care homes. The consultation questionnaire makes it clear that the changes proposed by CCG are a cost-saving exercise and not led by a pursuit of clinical excellence and the best interest of patients. Sale of the hospital sites for development will undoubtedly produce a quick, one-off financial gain but our concern is that any funding freed up for more community and home-based care will be less high-profile and therefore easier to target in future rounds of cuts... We recall the 'care in the community' initiative many years ago that led to the closure of specialised mental health units - since then there has been a gradual erosion of out-patient mental health services, until now, here in Devon, we have no long-term services for people with chronic mental health problems remaining - just 'acute' services which only provide short-term support - after this patients are on their own to sink or swim. Is this to be the future for our elderly and chronically ill too? The suggestion is that that many services currently provided by the highly professional staff at community hospitals could be provided by private care homes instead, at lower cost and that this would help 'stimulate the care home market'. This is privatisation of the NHS 'by the back door', which we believe is politically-motivated. Presumably these cost-savings could be achieved because private care homes have lower rates of pay, few medically trained staff and little in the way of long-term job security. Unfortunately, despite these savings, or perhaps because of them, the care-home sector in this country is in a state of crisis and is, in our opinion, in no fit state to take on more responsibility for the care of our chronically sick and elderly. We do not think that it is an appropriate use of tax-payers money to 'stimulate' profits for this sector and those that benefit from these, at the expense of our hospitals and their patients. In addition, this 'race-to-the-bottom' - the cost-saving privatisation of the NHS and other public sector services - is extremely short-sighted in our view. It does not take into account the long-term effects on individuals and the community of the loss of decently paid, secure local jobs. These are already few and far between here and the loss of decent, long-term employment in our communities is a surely a major contributing factor to increasing physical and emotional ill-health... Finally, we object strongly to the form of the consultation questionnaire provided on paper and online at www.communityconsultation.co.uk consultation feedback mechanism promoted by the CCG. We were shocked by the manipulative design of this form and felt that the respondent is being co-erced into answering in such a way as would support the CCG's proposals. We feel that the questions are leading and loaded and the structure of the form constrains and restricts free expression and doesn't encourage or support the communication of the thoughts and opinions of the respondent. We therefore consider it not fit for purpose and thereby challenge the validity of any results obtained from this during the consultation process. We expect the health service and the local CCG to champion the case for maintaining the standards necessary for good quality patient care and to elicit the public's opinions and thoughts about such an important issue, not to try and coax us into accepting a reduction in provision. We would not dispute that we need better care for chronically ill and older people locally and at home, but this should surely be in addition to, not at the expense of, the wonderful, caring and professional service that we already receive from our hospitals - within our communities and close to the support of family and friends.

The Save Rothbury Hospital Campaign believe that the suspension of in-patient services at Rothbury is having significant adverse consequences for our local population. We want to protect this precious and valuable resource. We ask the NHSCCG and NHS Foundation Trust to think with their hearts - not with their wallets. The immediate effects the sudden closure are: 1. Patients are not being admitted to a low tech facility close to home. This will cause a higher rate of acute admissions to the new Cramlington hospital. 2. Patients are unable to return to a low tech facility for rehabilitation, and discharge planning, close to home after an acute admission elsewhere. 3. Most crucially of all - we are left with no facility to provide end of life care for patients close to home, if circumstances, including patient choice, mean they cannot be cared for in their own homes. The people who are suffering (and will continue to suffer) as a result of this heartless decision are our frail and vulnerable residents of Rothbury and Coquetdale. We refuse to allow this to happen - we care about all of our people.

In Dec 2015 a young player in Essex was killed from a head injury on a hockey pitch. In October I had written to the FIH telling them I was so scared by the rules that I would not let my own children play and warning that it was only a matter of time before someone was killed by a head injury. I had been writing to the FIH on this subject for over 8 years. A year earlier a 27 year old narrowly escaped death from a hockey ball to the head with an emergency operation, and back in 2012 a young lady was hit by a ball and died instantly. The Mail campaigned on this in Dec 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2873726/Following-death-Lizzie-Watkins-does-hockey-refuse-protect-players.html However the unnecessary risks in this game are, in my opinion, far more threatening to children. Consider the fact that children must wear a gum shield, which plainly indicates that incidents around the mouth are a threat. However a ball or stick in the mouth will not normally kill but a ball or stick to the temple or throat can, and does, kill and a gum shield will do nothing to protect from that danger. Young players are closer to the surface and hence closer to the danger. They do not know the best ways to avoid the dangers, however they or their counterparts are able to learn skills today that used to only be accessible to expert player, and which are now legal and life threatening. Whilst I was at school a boy was killed by a ball to the head and another needed facial reconstructive surgery. That was just what I knew about. Hockey has had 35 years since these incidents to make this game safe and whilst they made good headway initially, over the past 17 years they have steadily relaxed the rules and consequently made the game more dangerous, even in schools. In 2015 the FIH removed the rule that prohibited playing the ball at or above head-height. England Hockey has a veto for all rules in domestic games. They canvassed hockey participators. Over 6000 players, coaches & umpires (parents were not specifically canvassed) responded. 59% stated that this was unsafe for use with children. However in Aug 2015 England Hockey ignored the warning and implemented this rule change across the 11 aside game – including with children. Club players can choose whether to place themselves in danger by entering a pitch, however school children are generally forced to play, commonly without them or their parents realising the mortal danger they face - and completely unnecessarily so. Former GB international and England captain Sarah Blanks, now director of sport at King Edward VI High School, Birmingham, stated, "Even in schools hockey, we see plenty of split heads. At Olympic level, it's more extreme still. You don't go into it without understanding the physical pain you'll encounter." GB Gold Medal winning keeper Maddie Finch stated ‘Any hockey goalkeeper who says they’ve never closed their eyes for a second and thought, “please don’t hit me” is lying,’ and that is for a heavily protected keeper compared to an outfield player who also ends up in the line of fire and is allowed only a gum shield and shin pads! Kate Richardson Walsh had her jaw fractured during GB’s first match at the 2012 Games. She had surgery to insert a plate — but returned just three games later wearing a protective mask. Something not allowed to other players and which does not protect the vulnerable and lethal temple or throat areas. The solution is not just about physically protecting players - it is about the simple process of making the game safe, or at least immensely safer, through simple, and in some cases obvious, rule revisions. Hockey is not like Football, in that the rules have not changed for decades, the FIH changes the Rules of Hockey almost every year and often in a number of ways. Indeed last season the FIH made 4 rule changes which resulted from issues and recommendation I had raised, 2 from 2009 & 2 from 2016 - however none of these improved safety and the many recommendations I made regarding safety in the same period were ALL ignored. Rule changes are simple to implement in Hockey and if the FIH will not implement them then schools should adopt a safer set of rules before they allow our children to face lethal consequences. If you are still not convinced at the dangers then before you let your child play hockey at school or anywhere else take a look at the pictures in the second half of this Mail news story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3748170/Captain-fell-team-mate-goalie-called-Mad-Dog-vegan-star-striker-Great-Britain-hockey-stars-going-glory-tonight-today-s-game-sheer-savagery.html It is not just the threat of death that worries me, injuries are very common in the game. My professional warning (as an insurance expert) is that a) we do not know how common injuries are because they are rarely, if ever, reported to the insurer (people who have been negligent and allowed an injury do not want to admit that they could be sued) and b) we should not expect that a morbid injury will be protected and supported by insurance, because I doubt the cover in place will ever pay out. So please don't let your child be the next to hit the surface and not get up - support my campaign and let's get this great game made safe and enjoyable for everyone! Risks and Proposed Solutions People are asking what rules need changing and why? If you are interested read the following blog https://saferulesforschoolshockey.wordpress.com/ or see a set of proposed simpler and safer rules at: https://saferulesforschoolshockey.wordpress.com/proposed-safer-rules-for-hockey/ You can also see some of the ball and stick hazards below: https://youtu.be/DzDGUVjIprw

It is another step to privatisation of the NHS. Walk in centres are all-new buildings financed by local taxpayers. They alleviate pressure on A &E. It is always very busy and its usual for an hour's wait to see a nurse which proves how well used it is

Please ban the spraying of Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides on our streets and parks.The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share our community with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. Please help us ban the spraying of Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides on our streets and parks.This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this town and its surrounding villages, of course including our beloved bees. If you don't live in this area, click here to sign or start the campaign for your city: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-a-pesticide-campaign

Because I am one of many people who is hard of hearing and hearing aids can cost as much as £1000 such as the ones l was issued recently, fortunately for me our trust hasn't stopped issuing hearing aids yet.

Coeliac disease is a long term health condition, which if left untreated, can lead to serious health complications, such as osteoporosis, fertility problems and in some cases, small bowel cancer. So, while small savings may be made now by cutting services for patients, there are likely to be long term financial implications resulting from this decision by the CCG. It is effectively a false economy. Coeliac Disease is often diagnosed alongside Type I Diabetes, both auto immune diseases. The effective control of Coeliac disease has a direct affect on the control of diabetes in patients. TRUE: Coeliac disease patients often have Type I Diabetes TRUE: Controlling Coeliac Disease helps in the control of Type I Diabetes FALSE: Type I Diabetes is a lifestyle disease - No. That is Type II. Type I is an auto immune disease. TRUE: Coeliac Disease is a diet controlled disease. FALSE: Coeliacs can eat without using gluten free foods. Unless you're a fruitarian or a health addict, this is a false assumption. How often do YOU eat wheat? TRUE: Many foods have hidden Gluten. TRUE: Gluten Free Foods are prohibitively expensive and often a lot smaller FALSE: Coeliacs order cakes, jellies and biscuits (They are not available to us) TRUE: The government should renegotiate with suppliers who charge excessive handling charges. NOT penalise the patient. TRUE: If some local health care authorities or doctors authorise the purchase of sweet items (mine doesn't) on prescription this should stop. The list should be revised to only include breads, flours, cereal, pastas and pizza. TRUE: Coeliacs often dislike wheat free substitutes. However the items on prescription are generally of a higher quality than supermarket items. TRUE: A large standard gluten loaf costs .80p - £1. A SMALL Gluten free loaf costs £3 TRUE: It's not fun being Coeliac. However having a son who is both Diabetic and Coeliac is a huge worry. One has the potential to cause cancer, the other loss of limbs or death. If the Coeliac Disease is not controlled, it affects the control of Diabetes? To say it keeps me awake at night is an understatement. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE sign this petition. Ask the government to reform the list of items available to non sugar items only. Do NOT let them take away this vital service. A large percentage of low income families will not be able to afford the gluten free alternatives. People on high incomes probably don't use this service anyway. My son was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes age 17. After two years and many changes in medication the hospital couldn't stabilise my son's Diabetes. They decided to test him for Coeliac Disease which tested positive. The government is opening the door to a huge amount of health issues with this move. Coeliac disease can cause cancer. Gluten free food is prohibitively expensive. In addition the quality of the food available on prescription is of a higher quality than that available in store.

68 beds were closed last month, nearly 7% of capacity. Even with all the beds open, the staff at the NNUH struggle daily to admit emergencies. Fewer beds means more people stuck in ambulances outside A&E or lying on trolleys for hours, a terrible experience when you are in need of urgent treatment, especially for the elderly. It also means more cancellations for routine admissions. The NNUH is in "financial special measures" and the accountants have arrived from London to find ways to make £17.6 million savings by next April, an impossibility without very serious damage to the hospital. The bed closures, which are described as temporary, are meant to save money by avoiding the use of agency nursing staff until this year's nursing graduates are available to take up posts. This petition is aimed at making sure the management know their actions are being watched and to make it less likely that they will be able to quietly make the cuts permanent. We hope it will make the the public more aware of what is going on and to object to the slashing and trashing of our NHS.

It has come to our attention that NHS England is threatening to close this surgery within months due to one of the partners dissolving the contract for GP services here against the wishes of his fellow partners, staff and most importantly the 6000 patients signed up here. This move will unnecessarily make many patients including vulnerable and elderly members of our community deeply anxious and could cause negative health, social and psychological effects. It is completely unfair that the actions of one GP should have a severely detrimental effect on the very existence of this surgery and its wider community – many of which have been members of this practice for over 20 years. The Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS England should seek to consult with the practice’s patients in order to see if an amicable solution can be found before making a decision of this magnitude. Earl’s Court Medical Centre (previously Om Sai Clinic) has been a vital part of our community for nearly 50 years and we cannot afford to lose this hugely important provision of local healthcare. This is a dispute between the doctors but the practice’s patients are very much dependent on this Centre and are happy with the high quality of service that they receive. The location is excellent being situated next to Earls Court Underground Station, easy parking, close to bus links, the A4 and Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. A decision like this should not be imposed on us when a huge majority of people associated with the practice including staff and patients strongly oppose any possible closure. There are no similar facilities near here and no comparable service. Patients feel safe, comfortable and reassured here even at times of great stress and worry for them. The closure of this surgery would result in the displacement of thousands of patients that would need to be relocated elsewhere, putting severe strain on neighbouring GP surgeries. This is not in the interests of NHS service provision in this part of London which is already facing huge pressures in dealing with demand. The NHS funded the purchase of the freehold of the building on Earl’s Court Road and they funded the formation of the practice, which is purpose built for healthcare services and represents millions of pounds worth of public investment over many years. The NHS pays a £200k/annum interest only mortgage for the premises. They pay for the running of this successful practice. To close it down would be a real travesty. This practice even has potential for growth. With additional doctors, the facility could cope with an extra 4,000 patients bringing the total to a possible 10,000. What needs to happen now? • Our aim is to do what is required in order to keep this surgery open • The people this affects are primarily the patients and staff. NHS England should consult the other GPs, staff and patients before arriving at a decision. • Do not proceed with any change until sufficient time should be given to a process of mediation between NHS England and the GPs concerned in order to explore all available options to keep this practice open instead of rushing through an ill conceived decision. What are the solutions? • NHS England to buy the partner out and find a replacement GP to replace him in order to sustain the practice contract • NHS England to buy the freehold of the property thereby safeguarding the longevity of the surgery • NHS England to halt any change to the existence of the surgery on the condition of seeking to find an alternative partner to replace the one that wishes to exit. • Give control to the remaining 2 GPs who are willing to buy the exiting partner out under a newly issued contract. We would be most grateful if you could do all that you can to save this practice from closure. It is against the will of the community at large and all seems to come from the actions of one doctor. This can so easily be avoided if some compassion, discretion and common sense could be applied at a senior level where such decisions can be taken. If necessarily, we would be grateful if you could raise this with the Secretary of State for Health as we feel these needs the attention at the highest levels in order to protect such a vital community asset concerning thousands of people.

Carers should be at least paid the equivalent of an office worker and not the minimum wage. When a decent wage is being paid then the quality of care will rise and staff will be retained. The treatment of those in care will improve ten fold. The care industry is in crisis with under-paid and over-worked tired care staff looking after vulnerable people and it is time that these people are recognised for the jobs that they do .

The board of the Oxford university hospital NHS foundation trust maintain that their impending downgrading of the maternity unit at the Horton Hospital, Banbury is due to no suitable doctors being available, news has also been released that two trauma doctors have resigned their posts. An investigation of the advertised posts in the trust show no indication of these posts being available. Downgrading of services at this local district general hospital, without any upgrading of services in the area's ambulance trust or the 'main' hospital in Oxford will inevitably mean sick / injured people being transported in unsuitable conditions for 30+ miles through some of the most congested roads in southern England to a hospital that will be overstretched trying to deal with a workload it was never designed for. This situation was totally avoidable and is no indication of a civilised country in the 21st century, those responsible should be bought to account

this is important as it is the closest science can at present allow a lesbian couple to have a child as close to biologically both of theirs as possible. The non biological parent is carrying the biological parents child and feels like a part of the ''making our baby' process. At present it can cost lesbian couples thousands of pounds to do this and only the rich couples can afford it. Allowing the same rights to lesbian couples to that of heterosexual couples on NHS including Reciprocal IVF would allow the poorer couples the chance to also have a family.