The weather was so nice yesterday that I did get into the garden and carried out my Favourite job – Weeding. I love pulling them and getting them out and find i still can do it.
We went round the park as well and enjoyed the sun.
Now today its raining so hard. Everything is soaked again.
A wet day but the garden enjoys it
Our little boy loves a hot towel wrap after he has splashed through all the puddles on his early walk of the day.
Happy May Day
I hope the rain stops before they dance today
A Jack in the Green (also Jack in the green, Jack-in-the-green, Jack i’ the Green, Jack o’ the Green etc.) is a participant in traditional English May Day parades and other May celebrations, who wears a large, foliage-covered, garland-like framework, usually pyramidal or conical in shape, which covers his body from head to foot. The name is also applied to the garland itself.
In the 16th and 17th centuries in England, people would make garlands of flowers and leaves for the May Day celebration. After becoming a source of competition between Works Guilds, these garlands became increasingly elaborate, to the extent that it covered the entire man. This became known as Jack in the Green. For some reason the figure became particularly associated with chimney sweeps as, for example, in Cheltenham; there are several explanations thereof, but none has been proven conclusively.
By the turn of the 19th century the custom had started to wane as a result of the Victorian disapproval of bawdy and anarchic behaviour. The Lord and Lady of the May, with their practical jokes, were replaced by a pretty May Queen, while the noisy, drunken Jack in the Green vanished altogether from the parades.
So today I feel Ok and tomorrow is nearly here so will have a lot to report back to you.
Latest write up for the Saatchi Bill
In democratic politics, perception is reality. If the people perceive a problem, there is one.
Over the past few months, in one of the largest public consultations ever undertaken in this country, the people have agreed that there is a problem with how we are treating some of the sickest in our society. We have a culture of defensive medicine in the NHS, a culture created by the fear of litigation that hangs over doctors. Last year, the health service paid £1.2 billion in lawsuits.
Of course the “do no harm” principle in medicine is a good thing. The way to avoid being sued is to treat patients with care, avoid negligent treatment and use the prescribed procedures, based on the evidence derived from scientific trials, for the ailments of the patient in front of you. Common law protects the doctor who carefully sticks to standard treatments. There is no problem with this – except in cases where the prescribed treatment doesn’t work and the death of the patient is the result.
This can be the dilemma facing the doctor of a patient with cancer that has spread, a patient with cancer for which there are limited treatment options, or a patient with a rare disease. Often there are no trials and no evidence to suggest a treatment that will work and therefore no hope of a cure or means of prolonging life.
In these cases, doctors might wish to try something new, to innovate, to find a cure for their dying patient. But fear of the law inhibits this – because innovation means abandoning the safe, standard procedure.
Last week, the Department of Health closed the public consultation into the Medical Innovation Bill – a Bill which I first introduced in December 2012, designed to protect patients and their doctors who wish to innovate. And thanks to the Secretary of State, and his legislation team at the Department of Health, it has been a model of a Government listening.
We now have the results. A staggering 18,655 people – including doctors and patients, relatives of the bereaved and soon-to-be bereaved, scientists, lawyers, legislators and the man and woman in the street – have responded wholeheartedly in support of this Bill. Fewer than 100 were against it. Thanks to the Telegraph in particular, which backed the Bill and the consultation from the start, this has been the biggest digital response of its kind to a Department of Health consultation by miles.
In February, we ran the first House of Lords Google Hangout – an online “town hall” meeting. It was a truly democratic way to gather public opinion in the heart of the Palace of Westminster. The social media response was huge – we reached more than 15 million on Twitter alone and this connected patients and doctors to the Bill, which they in turn adopted. Patients told their stories online, inspiring more and more to join, and the whole thing went viral.
The Bill has obviously touched a nerve. Why? Because people know that all cancer deaths are wasted lives. Science does not advance by one centimetre as a result of all these deaths, because the deceased receive only the “standard procedure” – the endless repetition of a failed experiment.
This was no tick-box or postcard consultation. Supporters took the time to write their own stories and reasons for backing the Bill – probably because they have seen first hand the desperation of those failed by conventional practice.
We have heard from doctors whose patients’ lives have been ripped apart, from the children who lost parents, and from children facing terminal illness. They want the answer to the same question: confronted with a prognosis of certain death, they ask, “Has everything been done? Can any more be done? Is there anything else you can do?”
Right now, that is a hard question for doctors to answer. The President of the Royal Society of Medicine, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, explained in the current British Medical Journal: “…departing from what is regarded as established practice or the standard of care leaves a doctor open to an action for negligence”.
Following the consultation, the Bill that is presented to Parliament in its final form will go further than the Mental Health Act in safeguarding patients. The Mental Health Act requires the authorisation of two doctors before an abortion or sectioning in a mental institution can take place lawfully; the Medical Innovation Bill requires the Multi Disciplinary Team in the hospital to approve the proposed innovation in advance. This is a most severe test, but however severe, it is better than the current position in which any departure from standard procedure can lead to the end of a doctor’s reputation and livelihood.
If the Bill receives Royal Assent after scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, good doctors will be protected and encouraged by the law. And bad doctors will be deterred from innovation without the support of a responsible group of colleagues. To anyone who wants to preserve the pre-eminence of the status quo this consultation result provides the answer: the people have spoken. The Bill will change the culture to stimulate innovation in medical treatment, which alone might lead to a cure for cancer.
I hope Her Majesty’s pen is full of ink.
Love Rays Puzzle today Thursday Puzzle: http://onestopmesothelioma.co.uk/