Our NHS is precious. We all rely on it to care for us and our loved ones. We want to protect it for the future, and we don't want to see it run down or sold off. Over the past few years, NHS funding has been squeezed so much that services are suffering. This winter, hospitals up and down the country have declared "major incidents" because they're struggling to cope. And now most hospitals are warning that their budget for next year has " reached the point where patient care is at risk” Meanwhile, the government is letting profit-hungry companies take over more and more NHS services. At at a time of squeezed budgets, this is the last thing the NHS needs. We want an NHS where patient safety is put first, and where the NHS is run for the public good. TTIP, the planned trade deal between the EU and the USA, could threaten the NHS further. If TTIP opens our NHS to American private healthcare companies, we could see even more privatisation and a slide into more US-style healthcare. We want the NHS excluded from TTIP. If this is not the constituency that you live in you can sign the petition to your MP and the candidates to be your MP here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/save-our-nhs/near/new

People lives are at risk waiting for ambulances and people are waiting on beds in corridors and people waiting in Casualty waiting rooms to see nurses and doctors and also ambulance staff are waiting for hospital staff to handover too.

The Foreign Office say that there should only be essential travel to these countries, but in the UK the HO is still sending people back to an uncertain future. Many of these people will return to countries where health services, education and civil society is in a state of collapse. The USA have allowed Liberians to stay in the USA until the threat is over. The UK should do the same.

I fell off my bike two weeks ago, fracturing my shoulder and giving myself a severe concussion. The NHS treated me amazingly, especially given it was a Friday night in A&E. The bang I received to my head meant I was in no fit state to properly understand everything they told me about my injuries, so the nurses put all the information in my bag to ensure I had everything I needed when I got home to help me deal with my recovery. I woke up the next day and was perplexed when I found a load of literature about injury lawyers and compensation claims in my bag. Currently, adverts for injury lawyers are on the back of information given to patients after treatment. Informative pamphlets are designed to notify patients of their condition and to explain what they need to do and why. These adverts encourage a 'blame' culture, do nothing to assist a patients recovery and propagate the idea that you can put a price on everything. Ironically, the NHS are likely to be one of the main targets of these law firms, thus tax payers' money is spend on litigation and compensation rather than improvements to the health care system. The NHS paid £1.2 billion in legal fees for clinical negligence. I am sure that much of this compensation is justified, however we need an autonomous health service which can operate for the good of the whole society without being blamed and forced to cough up for every worse-than-expected outcome. It is imperative that these adverts are removed from all NHS literature that is distributed to the public.

It is important to stop further privatisation of the NHS. Read more here: http://news.sky.com/story/1356686/nhs-sale-plan-controversy-risk-for-ministers

We all need the NHS these people work for little money and gratitude , but without them where would we be !! Please support my campaign . Every day these people help us and our loved ones , what do MPs do ???

It is in danger of becoming a world wide epidemic with millions dying needlessly

Because I was lucky to have been tested while I was pregnant and found to have it. If I hadn't had other problems, that test wouldn't have been done and my daughter may not have survived. I still read so many stories from other people who have lost their new babies to this killer.

The harms of female genital mutilation in all of its forms are well known, and the practice is rightly legally condemned. It is accepted that children have fundamental rights to bodily integrity and self-determination that cannot be outweighed by the wishes of a parent to follow religious or cultural practices. Cutting a child's genitals is a serious affront to these rights, and it can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm. However, in law and public policy this obvious conclusion is only applied to female children, when it is both boys and girls who are at risk from genital cutting. It is our opinion that all children have this same right to bodily integrity, and that this should be reflected in the law. Opponents have claimed that infant circumcision is harmless and has no long-term consequences. However, evidence from the experience of adults circumcised as children, from scientific investigation, and from the statistics of boys who are left with serious physical side effects or who even die as a result of these procedures attests to the physical and psychological harm that it can cause. Genital cutting can affect all children, and can harm all children. It is well past time to make it a thing of the past.

Strong prescription spectacles are much more expensive than low strength ones. People who are severly short- or long-sighted cannot function without spectacles. Often these people also need to change prescriptions more frequently than average as their vision worstens. Currently, people on benefits get help buying corrective glasses whether their vision defect is mild or severe. People in work, but on low incomes, should get the same help if they could not work without spectacles.

Recommendations and evidence from institutions such as the British Heart Foundation and the European Heart Network, along with a host of international specialists, strongly links fructose to obesity and cardiovascular disease. Even when compared to other refined sugars, fructose appears to be the most harmful option, and it is baffling as to why the Efsa would pass this narrow and short sighted ruling The BHF described this decision as having no public health benefit, so why should the public be misled by food manufacturers into thinking they are eating a healthier product. Most worrying is that this will surely, and most disproportionately affect foods marketed at children, fuelling our obesity epidemic.

Cancer just about impacts on everyone. It has blighted and touched upon most peoples lives. The government has as its first right to protect its people. The government are servants to its people.