Medical Cannabis has been used as a medicine for millennia. I can find no information that it is dangerous, but there is plenty of information to support using this very successful, sometimes miraculous medicine. It treats MS, many types of cancer, depression, anxiety, pain, insomnia, fibromyalgia, PTSD, and many, many other illnesses. Anyone with an ounce of compassion surely could not deny this important medicine.

The LD service is very specialist with relatively few staff doing different but highly specialist jobs. LD staff visit people in their homes for many reasons. For instance, we work hard to keep people out of hospital, if people do go to hospital we work to prevent readmission, we adapt homes so people don’t have to leave their family home or go into expensive care services, and we work with people to help them stay healthy and active, so that they don’t have to use other more expensive health services. And very often, there just aren’t any other services that can provide the care that we do. Norfolk County Council has cut Learning Disabilities Services by £960K and chosen to use the money elsewhere. But this money should be protected by Law for the specific care needs of people with learning disabilities. Help us get Norfolk County Council to reverse its harmful decision to cut Learning Disabilities services.

If the closures go ahead the well being, health and lives of people in the local area will be put at great risk.

I hope that those of you reading this never have to look after someone you love who is terminally ill. But, if you do, that you can ensure they can choose the death they want, are out of pain and able as most of us wish to stay at home. Lord Falconer’s Bill on assisted dying will have its second reading on Friday July 18th. It proposes that anyone who has a terminal illness who is judged by two Doctor’s to have less than 6 months to live and who is mentally competent to decide the timing of their own death to be given life ending medication. Objectors worry about the impact on the elderly and disabled but they are not included. This clarification means that if you are faced with the devastating news of an inoperable, incurable illness you can choose a dignified death at the time of your choosing without fearing that your loved ones could be prosecuted if they were to help you end your life: which may include following your instructions not to send you to hospital or call an ambulance because they know that you want to stay at home rather than face death in a ward full of strangers or unfamiliar place. As Sir Chris Woodhead explains in his brilliant article in the Sunday Times “To know there is a way out is a great comfort. For the GP to assist me is rational. I don’t want to die in hospital”see - www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1433324.ece One can’t help feel the pain of Desmond Tutu’s final recollection of the way his great friend Mandela was treated as he echoes Woodhead’s words and makes a powerful case for “A mind shift on the right to die” see www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/desmond-tutu-in-favour-of-assisted-dying. As someone who finds it agonising to recall the pain of caring for a partner faced with a devastating cancer perhaps the only consolation is knowing I was able to enable him to be at home so that he could hear the birds and see the garden while being surrounded by peace, love and light. But it was a fight and one that could have been avoided if only Lord Falconer's bill had been passed. Please sign this petition to encourage the Lords to support assisted dying.

We fear that privatisation could critically endanger the quality of Dorset County Hospital's pathology service and put patients at risk. We have been fighting an intense campaign against this privatisation in many different modes. Town centre petitioning events have provided 8000 signatures on paper. We need your help to lift this number as the campaign enters is last stage, so as to show the hospital the the Dorset public say NO to their important pathology laboratory being sold off. Where pathology labs were privatised elsewhere there were quality problems seen in the ensuing services and eventually financial problems had to be corrected. Where finance becomes tight then there is a temptation to cut corners. Over 100 people work at the Dorset County Hospital Pathology Laboratory, carrying out tests whose results guide the treatment of patients throughout a good part of Dorset and its surroundings. Private companies have been invited to bid to deliver this service in place of the existing NHS Pathology Laboratory. Should the service be moved away from Dorchester, there would no longer be the possibility of carrying out rapid on-site testing for patients in danger at the Dorchester hospital; moreover consultants would lose the valuable ability for close cooperation with the expert testers in cases of difficult diagnosis. The users of Dorchester Hospital Pathology Lab have no complaints about the service. It was being developed as a centre of excellence for cancer testing. The Dorset Health Campaign group was formed in late 2012 as a result of the 38 Degrees NHS privatisation campaign.

We are told that 'Smart' Meters will replace our existing water, gas and electricity metering systems and that the UK as a whole could benefit from saving up to 2% of our energy IF we change our behaviour. What are we NOT being told.. 1. There are major health concerns 'Smart' Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014) EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses. 2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy Germany has rejected 'Smart' Meters, citing a "lack of savings" for customers. In the UK, 'Smart' Meters are being publicised promoted as "putting consumers in control of energy". If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor - available for just £15 - to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, 'Smart' Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform "Active Demand Management" - where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public. 3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption Only consumers can save energy - when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total programme cost of £12bn - representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 - as energy companies looked to maximise profits. 4. Security vulnerabilities The proposed 'Smart' Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, "open to terrorist [cyber] attack". A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble - whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. 'Smart' Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012) 5. Privacy intrusions and profiling Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant's lives and behaviours at home - allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties - we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by 'Smart' Meters will follow. 6. They are a poor investment of OUR money Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher. 7. They are neither 'green' nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution - especially for children - due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless "Smart" Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted "out of date and obsolete" in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE's inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is "safe". Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent. 8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people's bills went UP after 'Smart; Meters had been installed - often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from 'Smart' Meters. Instead, Ofgem's recent 'Smartgrid Routemap' promotes the introduction of lucrative "Time of Use" tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times. Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings - ComEd's pilot in the US showing "zero statistical difference" in usage. Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public. We therefore want this £12bn programme STOPPED.

Bury Hospice provides invaluable in-patient, out-patient/day services and hospice at home services. They ensure vital support and care for those with a terminal or life-limiting illness and their friends and families.

This is important because the vast majority of people reading this petition will still be around in five years, and so this affects YOU. If we don't act now, then our safety and the safety of future generations will be in danger as our National Health Service slowly crumbles from a lack of funds.Furthermore, the population is ever increasing; as the ONS predicts, within 25 years the UK population will reach just over 73 million. This will put further strain on an already struggling institution. We need to say NO to spending £1.4 billion on redundancies, and YES to more spending on the NHS itself, its resources and its staff.

The shortage comes despite longstanding commitments from the Government to hugely expand the scope of care in the home and community – a reform which is seen as crucial if the NHS is to survive into the next century, as the population ages and the number of people living with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, dementia and Parkinson's grows. District nurses can also play a key role in end of life care, ensuring that patients are able to die at home with their families. But the service is now seriously over-stretched, the RCN said, with many district nurses seeing more than 12 patients in a single day and, in rural areas, often driving up to 70 miles per shift. A lack of any district nurses would not mean the end of home care visits, but would lead a serious disintegration of the community care system, the RCN said, which often requires many different organisations and individuals – including GPs, healthcare assistants and social workers – to operate in tandem, often with a district nurse serving as de facto manager. Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the RCN, said that district nurses were the “foundation of a system which should be able to manage conditions and keep sick and frail people at home”. “Remove those foundations and the whole edifice could come crashing down,” he said. “The NHS and the people who run it, have long paid lip service to the ideal of moving care closer to home. But many people up and down the country are still in need of expert care from district nurses.”

When we are treated in hospital or by another practitioner we need to be able to trust that we receive correct, well administered, well handled treatment. When we complain we need to see clearly that our complaint is well handled, and, most important, that the outcome of the complaint is carried through in practice. When we are forced, because of the closure of ranks, to complain to the Ombudsman we expect fair and even handed treatment of our complaint, with high professional standards. This is about us, our lives and in some cases our deaths. We need to be able to trust hospitals, doctors and nurses. And, when it all goes wrong and we have to complain, we need to be sure that our complaint is given a fair hearing. We need to be able to trust the Ombudsman. Today we cannot.

For a substantial amount of time now, Buckinghamshire has received less funding per capita than most of the country for our hospitals. This ‘cash-starving’ or 'squeeze' contributed to downgrades at Amersham and Wycombe hospitals and our Trust has recently been in 'special measures'. Since the downgrades at Wycombe hospital, many people have suffered and neighbouring hospitals have been overwhelmed. Staff, patients and their loved ones deserve better.

The Walk In Centre is easily accessible and an excellent service used by more than 27,000 people last year. Local people are very concerned at the prospect of losing this local facility and feel the District Hospital in South Shields as an alternative is out of the way. Waiting 2 weeks to see a GP is not an option for worried parents with poorly kids, the elderly, and vulnerable patients. The Walk In Centre is a prime example of Right Treatment, Right Time, Right Place.