Amend legal age to buy alcohol

I propose that people should be allowed to buy alcohol at 18 in licensed premises such as pubs and restaurants but the age limit should be raised to 21 years if buying at supermarkets or off licences.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that people should be allowed to buy alcohol at 18 in licensed premises such as pubs and restaurants but the age limit should be raised to 21 years if buying at supermarkets or off licences.

Remove rule on quantity of drugs per prescription

Remove limitation on each each prescription to 4 weeks supply of drugs. At the moment every four weeks I have to submit a repeat prescription request for my Thyroxine even though I only need a blood test every 6 to 12 months. For for all the other repeat prescription the Doctor adds no useful value they just automatically sign the form

Why is this idea important?

Remove limitation on each each prescription to 4 weeks supply of drugs. At the moment every four weeks I have to submit a repeat prescription request for my Thyroxine even though I only need a blood test every 6 to 12 months. For for all the other repeat prescription the Doctor adds no useful value they just automatically sign the form

STOP 4 hour waiting targets in A&E

I'm a doctor who has worked extensively in A&E. 4 hour waiting targets seem like a great idea, the public feel they will be seen and treated quicker. I have seen, unfortunately, many episodes of patient care being compromised by the 4 hour waiting target. Patients will simply be moved out of the department after 4 hours if they require an admission regardless of whether essential treatment has been completed or not. I've seen patient's not get essential blood tests/ECGs/x-rays as the Nursing staff have been too panicked by the wrath they will incur from management if the patients "breech". I have seen a patient die as they were transferred to an inappropriate ward to make sure they did not breech when they were very unwell and did not get highlighted to the doctors on call. The four hour waiting target compromises patient care and makes A&E even more stressful and challenging when Doctors and Nurses should be concentrating on making correct decisions in patient care and management. I think patient flow through A&E needs to be focused on but an arbitary, inflexible target of 4 hours is dangerous. I personally have been forced into making a rushed decision on the care of a 1 year old child as they were about to breech the 4 hour target. What if this was your child?

Why is this idea important?

I'm a doctor who has worked extensively in A&E. 4 hour waiting targets seem like a great idea, the public feel they will be seen and treated quicker. I have seen, unfortunately, many episodes of patient care being compromised by the 4 hour waiting target. Patients will simply be moved out of the department after 4 hours if they require an admission regardless of whether essential treatment has been completed or not. I've seen patient's not get essential blood tests/ECGs/x-rays as the Nursing staff have been too panicked by the wrath they will incur from management if the patients "breech". I have seen a patient die as they were transferred to an inappropriate ward to make sure they did not breech when they were very unwell and did not get highlighted to the doctors on call. The four hour waiting target compromises patient care and makes A&E even more stressful and challenging when Doctors and Nurses should be concentrating on making correct decisions in patient care and management. I think patient flow through A&E needs to be focused on but an arbitary, inflexible target of 4 hours is dangerous. I personally have been forced into making a rushed decision on the care of a 1 year old child as they were about to breech the 4 hour target. What if this was your child?

Right of each and every child born in UK to know his/her biological parents

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

Minister for Men

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

Why is this idea important?

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

NHS can raise funds by charging binge drinkers for A&E admissions and treatment

I propose that the NHS seriously consider introducing a minimum charge for all binge drinkers for non-urgent hospital A&E / casualty admissions and treatment as a direct result of their own selfish irresponsible ways. 

The charges are levied immediately on admission at reception BEFORE any treatment can be given. The flat rate should be £50.00. The millions raised in this way would then be ploughed straight back into NHS funds for valuable resources such as staff, ambulances, medicines, etc.  This may go some way towards making the stupid irresponsible idiots [who do not realise the sheer strain they are placing on our hospitals] fully accountable for their actions. And may work much better than any previous useless ideas put forward by the government such as forcing police to deal out 'on the spot' fines for drunkenness on the streets (marching them to a cashpoint  – what a rubbish feeble idea that is!).

Why is this idea important?

I propose that the NHS seriously consider introducing a minimum charge for all binge drinkers for non-urgent hospital A&E / casualty admissions and treatment as a direct result of their own selfish irresponsible ways. 

The charges are levied immediately on admission at reception BEFORE any treatment can be given. The flat rate should be £50.00. The millions raised in this way would then be ploughed straight back into NHS funds for valuable resources such as staff, ambulances, medicines, etc.  This may go some way towards making the stupid irresponsible idiots [who do not realise the sheer strain they are placing on our hospitals] fully accountable for their actions. And may work much better than any previous useless ideas put forward by the government such as forcing police to deal out 'on the spot' fines for drunkenness on the streets (marching them to a cashpoint  – what a rubbish feeble idea that is!).

legalization and industrialization of cannabis/hemp

to end percicution against cannabis hemp users :medical users,social/recreational users.

allowing people to grow there own plants (for personal use)

to have the government grow there own plant production

also to have the government put forward jobs via cannabis hemp production to eliminate unemployment and end recession and pay defficate

cannabis/hemp can be used for:

fuel

fiber

fabrics

medicine

livestock feed

human food

plastics

there are over 1000 applications for the use of cannabis hemp all of them possitive

legalize and lets begin to live

Why is this idea important?

to end percicution against cannabis hemp users :medical users,social/recreational users.

allowing people to grow there own plants (for personal use)

to have the government grow there own plant production

also to have the government put forward jobs via cannabis hemp production to eliminate unemployment and end recession and pay defficate

cannabis/hemp can be used for:

fuel

fiber

fabrics

medicine

livestock feed

human food

plastics

there are over 1000 applications for the use of cannabis hemp all of them possitive

legalize and lets begin to live

Choice for Landlords

The choice of whether a pub or club would be 'nosmoking' should have been left to the landlord or manager of every establishment to decide for themselves, and not forced on us all in such a draconian manner.

Why is this idea important?

The choice of whether a pub or club would be 'nosmoking' should have been left to the landlord or manager of every establishment to decide for themselves, and not forced on us all in such a draconian manner.

Amend smoking law to permit lone workers to smokeWh

Why should those who work alone be obliged to refrain from smoking, don't say it smells unpleasant, so does body odour. We can smell plenty of that these days.

Does any one really believe that a little bit of cigarette smoke created by the driver of a heavy goods vehicle or an excavator,is detrimental compared to thousands of litres of poisonous exhaust fumes produced by the engines of these vehicles,if so I'm sure they would be unable to produce irrefutable proof, if smoking were as dangerous as is claimed why do some smokers grow old along with some non smokers.

Consider this back in the fifties and sixties when far more people smoked than owned a motor there wasn't the incidence of all types of cancer that we see today when far more people own a motor than smoke.Cigarette smoke or exhaust gas?I know which I would rather breath

Why is this idea important?

Why should those who work alone be obliged to refrain from smoking, don't say it smells unpleasant, so does body odour. We can smell plenty of that these days.

Does any one really believe that a little bit of cigarette smoke created by the driver of a heavy goods vehicle or an excavator,is detrimental compared to thousands of litres of poisonous exhaust fumes produced by the engines of these vehicles,if so I'm sure they would be unable to produce irrefutable proof, if smoking were as dangerous as is claimed why do some smokers grow old along with some non smokers.

Consider this back in the fifties and sixties when far more people smoked than owned a motor there wasn't the incidence of all types of cancer that we see today when far more people own a motor than smoke.Cigarette smoke or exhaust gas?I know which I would rather breath

care for the elderly in their own home

elderly people who need daily care because they are housebound should be able to receive this in their own home through the local authorities.  Assistance with dressing, washing, and other day to day needs should automatically be made available to them as this is their human right.  They should be allowed to remain with their family without fear of being taken from their family and being put into residential care.

Why is this idea important?

elderly people who need daily care because they are housebound should be able to receive this in their own home through the local authorities.  Assistance with dressing, washing, and other day to day needs should automatically be made available to them as this is their human right.  They should be allowed to remain with their family without fear of being taken from their family and being put into residential care.

Health and Safety at Vet’s practice.

Scrap the Health and Safety rule that says when you have one of your pets put down, you can not be with them in their final minutes in the same room as the vet is using a gas as part of the process.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the Health and Safety rule that says when you have one of your pets put down, you can not be with them in their final minutes in the same room as the vet is using a gas as part of the process.

Repeal the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

Why is this idea important?

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

IVF treatment on the NHS

I do not agree that public money should be spent on IVF treatment with the NHS. Its recently been suggested that older women should have access to avoid discrimination. This is ridiculous. This approach denies children the benefit of a normal period of time with their Mother through self interest.

Infertility is not an illness. There are enough children being born without artificially increasing the population further.

Why is this idea important?

I do not agree that public money should be spent on IVF treatment with the NHS. Its recently been suggested that older women should have access to avoid discrimination. This is ridiculous. This approach denies children the benefit of a normal period of time with their Mother through self interest.

Infertility is not an illness. There are enough children being born without artificially increasing the population further.

Cannabis ‘gateway’ drug’ or the lesser evil?

 

Cannabis is blamed for being a 'gateway' drug – yet a 16 year old can smoke 50 cigarettes a day, an 18 year old can drink themselves onto the liver transplant list and everybody is unconsciously exposed to the advertisement of calorie filled, artery stuffing fast food.  The government taxes these killers and spends so much of the tax payer money 'helping' these people so why not tax and regulate a natural plant that helps with a variety of medical concerns and does not have the same short or long term implications as tabacco, alcohol or fatty foods?

Why – because people are either scared of change, ignorant to the benefits of decriminalising cannabis*, which has been talked down for generations by the government, or; because people have been too scared to stand up for what they believe in, due to the fact they could be fired from their jobs and imprisoned.  

If women did not fight for their political rights, if African American's did not fight for their liberty, if homosexuals did not fight for equality then the world would be a very different place today, so why, like these previously discriminated groups, do cannabis smokers and campaigners have to live their lives listening in fear to every noise outside their door and why are more people not willing to voice their concerns?

To me this sounds like living a life in fear – all because somebody deemed the plant as a dangerous 'drug' nearly a hundred years ago by the Dangerous Drugs Act which was anyway based on the principles of banning Indian Hemp. 

Is Britain a democracy?  Apparently so.

In a democracy who is meant to approve and disapprove laws?  The people.

So who makes the decisions in Britian today?  Well, after (Government Drug Adviser) Dr. Nutt was fired for speaking his academically proclaimed mind, I would say the answer is definitely not the people.

Change/revolution/progression are all daunting words but how in the modern developed world do smokers continue to lose the battle of a humans individual right to legalise cannabis when there are so many supporters? 

Is it fair to brand a smoker caught with a 'joint' under the same '1972 Misuse of Drugs Act' that goes to a heroin dealer who has caused deaths?

How can a 16 years old walk down the street smoking a cigarette and be pregnant when a 68 year old cancer suffer must hide in their homes, like Anne bloody Frank?

Remove the link between criminalised gangs and cannabis, get these people out of selling drugs and use their expertise in management and cultivation to give them the chance to reform as citizens.  Stop cannabis being this supposed 'pathway' drug and regulate it like other luxuries.  And most importantly STOP spending milions of pounds on prosecuting individuals because they like to smoke a plant.


*Helping with illness; the depressed, over weight, under weight, pain relief.  Creating a new industry to fight the deficit.  Reduce the amount spent on prosecuting 'criminals' – with Legal Aid savings, more prison places, the time relocation to real police work.  Have less chemical precriptions perscribed which long term should reduce depression and addiction to prescibed drugs. 
 

Why is this idea important?

 

Cannabis is blamed for being a 'gateway' drug – yet a 16 year old can smoke 50 cigarettes a day, an 18 year old can drink themselves onto the liver transplant list and everybody is unconsciously exposed to the advertisement of calorie filled, artery stuffing fast food.  The government taxes these killers and spends so much of the tax payer money 'helping' these people so why not tax and regulate a natural plant that helps with a variety of medical concerns and does not have the same short or long term implications as tabacco, alcohol or fatty foods?

Why – because people are either scared of change, ignorant to the benefits of decriminalising cannabis*, which has been talked down for generations by the government, or; because people have been too scared to stand up for what they believe in, due to the fact they could be fired from their jobs and imprisoned.  

If women did not fight for their political rights, if African American's did not fight for their liberty, if homosexuals did not fight for equality then the world would be a very different place today, so why, like these previously discriminated groups, do cannabis smokers and campaigners have to live their lives listening in fear to every noise outside their door and why are more people not willing to voice their concerns?

To me this sounds like living a life in fear – all because somebody deemed the plant as a dangerous 'drug' nearly a hundred years ago by the Dangerous Drugs Act which was anyway based on the principles of banning Indian Hemp. 

Is Britain a democracy?  Apparently so.

In a democracy who is meant to approve and disapprove laws?  The people.

So who makes the decisions in Britian today?  Well, after (Government Drug Adviser) Dr. Nutt was fired for speaking his academically proclaimed mind, I would say the answer is definitely not the people.

Change/revolution/progression are all daunting words but how in the modern developed world do smokers continue to lose the battle of a humans individual right to legalise cannabis when there are so many supporters? 

Is it fair to brand a smoker caught with a 'joint' under the same '1972 Misuse of Drugs Act' that goes to a heroin dealer who has caused deaths?

How can a 16 years old walk down the street smoking a cigarette and be pregnant when a 68 year old cancer suffer must hide in their homes, like Anne bloody Frank?

Remove the link between criminalised gangs and cannabis, get these people out of selling drugs and use their expertise in management and cultivation to give them the chance to reform as citizens.  Stop cannabis being this supposed 'pathway' drug and regulate it like other luxuries.  And most importantly STOP spending milions of pounds on prosecuting individuals because they like to smoke a plant.


*Helping with illness; the depressed, over weight, under weight, pain relief.  Creating a new industry to fight the deficit.  Reduce the amount spent on prosecuting 'criminals' – with Legal Aid savings, more prison places, the time relocation to real police work.  Have less chemical precriptions perscribed which long term should reduce depression and addiction to prescibed drugs. 
 

PC laws

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Stop people smoking

More needs to be done to stop people from smoking. It has long been proved that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and other health problems, not just for smokers but for those around them who are unwilling passive smokers.

With the very good smoking ban in place in buildings and enclosed areas, we now have a problem with people smoking outside these buildings, which encroaches on my civil liberties, by forcing me to momentarily become a passive smoker — worse still if it is at a bus stop when I am waiting for a bus and cannot get away from it.

And the existing ban needs to be enforced — too many smokers are flouting the law by smoking in train stations and bus shelters and nothing is done about it.

The more extreme forms of smoking like drugs, must also be outright banned and the ban enforced.

Smoking should not be allowed outside building entrances or at any bus stops.

Why is this idea important?

More needs to be done to stop people from smoking. It has long been proved that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and other health problems, not just for smokers but for those around them who are unwilling passive smokers.

With the very good smoking ban in place in buildings and enclosed areas, we now have a problem with people smoking outside these buildings, which encroaches on my civil liberties, by forcing me to momentarily become a passive smoker — worse still if it is at a bus stop when I am waiting for a bus and cannot get away from it.

And the existing ban needs to be enforced — too many smokers are flouting the law by smoking in train stations and bus shelters and nothing is done about it.

The more extreme forms of smoking like drugs, must also be outright banned and the ban enforced.

Smoking should not be allowed outside building entrances or at any bus stops.

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

Why is this idea important?

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

Expensive chronical treatment under NHS for newly arrived foreigners

I know several Eastern Europeans with long term health problems, such as cancer,

coming to the UK for a freeloading medical treatment.

One Lithuanian I know, who has a leukemia, arrived to the UK, got a job as a pizza delivery man and then turn up into hospital. He was put in a ward and then kindly referred to several consultants and received  £20,000 per year treatment.

That’s in spite the fact that lots of British tax paying people denied cancer drug. I don't know exactly which EU law allows that but it doesn’t make any sense. If we cannot afford to treat our own people, how come we through money on people who just arrived.

My idea  is to repealing/modifying the law that allows that non sense. For example so that pre -existing condition could not be treated NHS, similar to insurance companies which do not cover pre-existing conditions.

Why is this idea important?

I know several Eastern Europeans with long term health problems, such as cancer,

coming to the UK for a freeloading medical treatment.

One Lithuanian I know, who has a leukemia, arrived to the UK, got a job as a pizza delivery man and then turn up into hospital. He was put in a ward and then kindly referred to several consultants and received  £20,000 per year treatment.

That’s in spite the fact that lots of British tax paying people denied cancer drug. I don't know exactly which EU law allows that but it doesn’t make any sense. If we cannot afford to treat our own people, how come we through money on people who just arrived.

My idea  is to repealing/modifying the law that allows that non sense. For example so that pre -existing condition could not be treated NHS, similar to insurance companies which do not cover pre-existing conditions.

Healthy Meals gone mad! Remove restrictions on what can be served to children in schools

Acknowledge school staff and afterschool staff's professionalism by giving them back the right to serve meals that they view as healthy.  The National Standards at the moment are so resiticting that a school can offer certain foods at lunch-time but not at tea-time, and even if hotmeals are not offered by the school the retrictions on tea-time still exist!  This makes the preperation of tea-time meals over challenging.  I am not saying that children should be served junk food every day but they should be able to eat "home-cooked" style meals without having to analyse every ingredient that goes into the meal.

 

Let people use their common sense!

Why is this idea important?

Acknowledge school staff and afterschool staff's professionalism by giving them back the right to serve meals that they view as healthy.  The National Standards at the moment are so resiticting that a school can offer certain foods at lunch-time but not at tea-time, and even if hotmeals are not offered by the school the retrictions on tea-time still exist!  This makes the preperation of tea-time meals over challenging.  I am not saying that children should be served junk food every day but they should be able to eat "home-cooked" style meals without having to analyse every ingredient that goes into the meal.

 

Let people use their common sense!

remove movement ban on livestock

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Why is this idea important?

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Legalize Drugs

The use, possession and supply of all drugs should be legalized immediately. It will destroy organized crime cartels, solve the problem of overpopulated prisons and most important of all it will be giving people the choice. If somebody wants to mess themselves up by putting a load of dodgy chemicals in their body then let them! Drugs will become safter as a result, with legally-enforceable quality guidelines (no more coke cut with talcum powder), and it will give a massive boost to the economy as tourists flock here from all over the universe to get out of their faces and spend a load of money at British businesses.

Why is this idea important?

The use, possession and supply of all drugs should be legalized immediately. It will destroy organized crime cartels, solve the problem of overpopulated prisons and most important of all it will be giving people the choice. If somebody wants to mess themselves up by putting a load of dodgy chemicals in their body then let them! Drugs will become safter as a result, with legally-enforceable quality guidelines (no more coke cut with talcum powder), and it will give a massive boost to the economy as tourists flock here from all over the universe to get out of their faces and spend a load of money at British businesses.