Health Records

The petition is entitled create a national clearing house for patient data in the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"The NHS data system is a shambles. One hospital cannot see any records from say a GP or a hospital at the moment & if they can get them it's pure luck.

The airline industry has SITA, which connects together the disparate systems of all airlines & airports in the world, translating data into a known format to the recipient.

We petition the PM to impliment a similar system to this for the NHS & abandon any dramatic redesign & rollout of new systems to GPs, Hospitals etc. This will cost much less (if not botched) & work much better"

It would appear that the petitioner has not heard about the NHS "Spine" project. I have, and what I've heard I don't like. I've requested that my records not be included, and written to the health minister and my MP accordingly.

Other people have explained better than I could the whys and wherefores of objecting to this project: The Big Opt Out looks like a splendid explanation.

I have every sympathy with people with unusual problems needing to be able to communicate these to different medics. Medic-Alert bracelets are an excellent solution for some people; others may wish to have, perhaps, letters from their GP to carry with them when away from their usual carers. Other individual solutions are possible, without invading all of our privacy for the sake of nominal convenience for a few.

Two further points: one, the petitioner himself identifies that this might only work "if not botched". Since the government's track record on IT projects being unbotched is so very ... splendid ... I am loath to trust them with any more. And two - a personal anecdote from a practice nurse. Some mini-version of this was wheeled out and staff were requested to test it. An enormous proportion of the searches were on "David Beckham". Mmmmm, trust-worthiness! Respect for privacy! Yummy!!

(I have tagged this as "ID Card" relevant, because of my mental connection between these different projects to database-ise us all.)

Fund-raising for the NHS

The petition is entitled hold a fundraising night for the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"We raise alot of money for places abroad when WE need money to help us. I think we should have a night like the comic relief night to help the NHS which is in desperate need of money."

This is a very noble, at-first-glance-sensible plan. I admire the innovativeness. (Is that a word? My spell-checker thinks so ...)

The Official Red Nose Day website tells me that the 2007 Red Nose Day raised a whopping "£40,236,142 million" - but unfortunately, I think that's a lie. I think they've accidentally added an extra "million" there - the Wikipedia page about it only references £40,236,142, and that's in line with previous years' results, too.

So a very nice £40 million raised.

The Budget 2006 (warning, PDF file) says that in 2007-2008, annual spending on the NHS should be about £92 billion.

So the amount raised by Comic Relief is less than one-twenty-fifth of one percent - is four percent of one percent - of the cost of the NHS ...

So even leaving aside all the political implications of fund-raising for the NHS this way (it's rather contrary to how the NHS is supposed to be funded, after all - but at the same time, it's not new. For years I got my Christmas cards from the cancer unit that treated my grandmother, to help their fund-raising) unfortunately, it's hopelessly impractical.

I remember a quote, and I cannot think where from, that says something like: "Oh, for a beautiful day in the future when hospitals and schools can buy all the medicine and books they need, and the RAF and Army have to have bake-sales to buy guns". Of course, given the recent reports about ill-equipped soldiers in the gulf, we seem to have got the less-good bit of that without the good bit ...

Asthma and Prescription Charges

Apologies for the hiatus. I have been feeling singularly non-venomous. Fortunately for you, the electrics blew earlier and upset my computer, so now I'm in a bad mood. :)

The petition is entitled Recognise athsma as a life threatening condition and as such provide free athsma medication for sufferers of the disease and the explanatory notes say

"Presently, people with life long and life threatening illnesses get their prescriptions free. Athsma is both life long and life threatening and yet we have to pay at least £6.75 per inhaler to survive. I, for example, get through on average 6 a month, so you do the maths..."

There's nothing as such wrong with this petition. Not all life threatening and/or life long disorders get free prescriptions, however - the PDF leaflet about "Help with Health Costs from the Department for Health lists only hypoparathyroidism, hypoadrenalism for which specific substitution therapy is essential, diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism, diabetes mellitus except where treatment is by diet alone, myasthenia gravix, myxoedema, epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy, a permanent fistula requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance, and any continuing physical disability which means you cannot leave home without the help of another person. So not all life threatening and/or life long conditions, then.

Furthermore, if you are using six inhalers a month ... the Department of Health also notes that

"Patients who have to pay for more than five prescription items in four months or 14 items in 12 months may find it cheaper to buy a pre-payment certificate (PPC)."

You can buy them online from the Prescription Pricing Division at a cost of (as of 26th March 2007) £34.65 for four months or £95.30 for twelve months. The prices are changing on the 1st July 2007.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I've heard an asthma nurse say that using that many inhalers is a sure sign of the asthma being inappropriately controlled, but that may depend on which kind of inhaler is being used. At any rate, the petitioner need not be spending on each prescription independently.

Drug Patents

The petition is entitled Extend the period of Patent for drug companies and the explanatory notes say

"To enable the companies to have more time to make a smaller profit per item, but over a longer time. This would result in lower prices for perscription drugs and stop the practice of the Goverment insisting on the use of inferior drugs that cost less but have adverse affects on the patients."

This would be marvellous if you're naive enough to think that the companies would actually charge less per-dose as a results ...

The petitioner also seems to have a strange idea about alternative drugs, too. To the best of my knowledge, a doctor can prescribe whatever drug he/she likes (assuming it's in the BP or whatever it is, and licensed for the relevant condition, etc.). If the thing is out of patent and there is a generic product available, then this must be used - but that's a generic that's exactly equivalent pharmaceutically, to the best of my knowledge.

In short, naivety, madness, or both. Probably both.

NHS Entitlement

The petition is entitled Restrict the NHS to British citizens and UK residents only to protect the NHS from privatisation and the explanatory notes say

"This petition would guarantee to stop privatisation of the NHS and would cut the costs of running the NHS by £millions. It would also stop non-tax payers to scrounge off YOUR money that you pay legitamitly to the government."

Who, exactly, does the petitioner think is entitled to NHS treatment?? The Citizens' Advice Bureau website makes things quite clear, and to spare you clicking, let's summarise.

Some treatment is available free to anyone at all:

• treatment for accidents and emergencies as an outpatient in a hospital’s accident and emergency department. Emergency treatment in a walk-in centre is also free of charge (England and Wales only). However, if you are referred to an outpatient clinic or admitted to hospital from an accident and emergency department, you will be charged
• compulsory psychiatric treatment
• treatment for certain communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, cholera, food poisoning, malaria and meningitis. Testing for the HIV virus and counselling following a test are both free of charge, but any necessary subsequent treatment and medicines may have to be paid for
• family planning services.

So not much there, then.

Furthermore, some people are entitled to all NHS hospital treatment free of charge. These are people who:

• have been living legally in the UK for at least 12 months when you seek treatment, and did not come to the UK for private medical treatment. Temporary absences from the UK of up to three months are ignored
• have come to the UK to take up permanent residence, for example, if you are a former UK resident who has returned from abroad, or if you have been granted leave to enter or remain as a spouse
• have come to the UK to work, either as an employee or self-employed person. This does not include people on short business trips
• normally work in the UK, but are temporarily working abroad, have at least 10 years continuous residence in the UK, and have been abroad for less than 5. However, if you are studying abroad you are not entitled to free NHS treatment
• are receiving a UK war disablement pension or war widows’ pension
• are an asylum seeker or have been granted exceptional leave to remain or refugee status. Proof of your immigration status from the Home Office may be required. If you are refused asylum you may be required to repay the cost of any treatment you have received
• are imprisoned in the UK or detained by UK immigration authorities
• are a UK state pensioner who spends up to six months a year living in another European Economic Area (EEA) state, but are not a resident of that state
• are working in another EEA country, or in Switzerland, but are paying compulsory UK national insurance contributions
• are a student following a course of study which lasts at least six months, or is substantially funded by the UK government.

There are also reciprocal arrangements within the European Economic Area and various other countries, whereby their residents here can get NHS treatment and our residents there can get their treatment.

In other words, the vast majority of people entitled to NHS treatment are already, as the petitioner requests, "British Citizens and UK residents". The few others - well - it doesn't feel as though either justice would be served by cutting them off from it, or much money would be saved either!

In short: what guarantee that this would prevent the privatisation of the NHS? None at all!

"Wholistic" blether

The petition is entitled List in a global 'dictionary' and make practice of the word Wholistic and the explanatory notes say

"Negotiates to inform Government of wholistic awareness. Seeks funding as wholistic consultant. Paradigms developed since 1993 shaped & shared across the board. Seek funding for 7 online outreach 'Wholistic consultants'. Units banked with NOCN. Volunteers practice the Wholistic self, documenting experiential learning for the provision of wholistic awareness. Founder listed with NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners & Member of a Registered Charity. Expect on consultation to arrive at the real meaning of the word "Holistic" & awareness 'bridging the gap' between mainstreams of education to the complementary (post 16) fields of Learning. Objective- share experience of wholistic learning techniques in the ‘digital age’ to statutory agencies, organizations and communities that wish to develop a simple understanding of the word wholistic."

I'm impressed. Fully fifteen people so far have understood this petition (and presumably also its notes) well enough to feel able to sign it. I wish one of them would explain it to me!

The petitioner lists herself as belonging to Universal Learning Volunteers, so I visited their website to see if I could get any sense out of that. I must say they have an exceedingly pretty butterfly-of-light background image to their first page - it's a pity it is so high-contrast that you can't read all the text. And indeed that the HTML of both the index page and the main page beyond it are invalid, so that it renders hopelessly in the browsers I have available to me. All overlapping text and stuff.

I do not find the website deeply enlightening. "Universal Learning is committed to bridging the gaps between 'mainstreams' of education and the 'complementary' fields of learning", which is all very laudable. "The Association for the Development of Universal Learning - is an on-line network of individuals who support the development and application of a Universal approach" - OK - for people who believe in a holistic approach to everything, apparently. Dirk Gently would be thrilled.

Aha! A button labelled "Principle" - where it says "The process of W*Holistic Management entails two steps; 1. ANALYSIS (taking-apart the 'problem' to see what makes it 'tick;') & 2. SYNTHESIS (putting it back together, ticking better!)" That sounds to me like ... er ... the only way to solve a problem. A perfectly normal method employed by ... anyone. What's "W*Holistic" about it?

I took a trip over to the Quackometer and found to my amusement that in the Little Black Duck's opinion, "The quacking noise is deafening. This web site is riddled with loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. It shows no sceptical awareness and so should be treated with a suspicious mind."

I must say I agree with the Duck. I find it very difficult to put a finger on why this all sounds nonsensical and psychobabble-y - some of it, of course, sounds perfectly sensible, only expressed in a flowery and almost-incomprehensible way.

Undoubtedly there are times when a holistic approach - to use the conventional spelling - is valuable. Particularly with psychological health problems, but also in all sorts of other cases.

Which doesn't mean we need quackery and incomprehensible gibberish like this.

Compulsory Contraception

The petition is entitled make the contraception jab/implant compulsary for all girls under 16 and the explanatory notes say

"This would help tackle the fact that children are having babies. They are a drain on resources."

Thought number one: my word - that'll be great for the significant number of people who're affected badly by hormonal intervention, then!

Thought number two: The Victoria Gillicks of the world will be delighted with that! I suppose in theory Gillick's complaint that she should know if her under-16 children were being given contraception would be null, since she'd know jolly well they were - but that's really not her point, and I'm sure she and others would complain about it encouraging children to be promiscuous.

Thought number three: I imagine some other complaints would be made to the effect that it would encourage carelessness with respect to sexually transmitted diseases, and also that it would encourage boys and young men to treat contraception as purely the woman's responsibility. And I can't say I'd disagree.

Thought number four: I wonder what it would cost, compared to what it would prevent? The Office of National Statistics gives faintly confusing data ... it tells us that in 1999 there were 3.9 pregnancies leading to maternity per thousand girls aged 13-15. It also appears to say that there were 4.4 abortions per thousand girls aged 13-15 who conceived, which seems infeasibly low. Their abortion figures suggest that in 1999 there were 3.8 pregnancies leading to abortion per thousand girls aged 13-19. I suppose, to get an upper bound, we could add those together and say that in 1999 there cannot have been more than 7.7 girls per thousand aged between 13 and 15 who got pregnant.

Then we wonder how many of them there were, not per thousand, but at all ... We go back to the ONS and find that in 1999 there were 12,000,000 children aged between 0 and 15. If we assume (dodgily, but it'll do) that they were evenly spread in that age range, we get 2,250,000 children aged 13-15, and therefore 1,125,000 girls. Which leaves us with a hair under 8,700 pregnancies (we think that 4,300 lead to the children being born and 4,400 lead to abortions). Maybe. Based on dodgy maths.

So. What would it cost to implant or jab all the under-16s? Presumably we don't actually want to bother with the babies ... given that in 2006 we had the brouhaha about Scotland's Youngest Mother who got pregnant at 11, I suppose the petitioner wants us to start at least this young. (I do wonder about the medical implications for those girls who, at 11 or so, are not yet through puberty ...) So by the same extrapolation we used earlier, I assume that in 1999 there would have been some 3,750,000 girls to be jabbed and/or implanted.

What do jabs and/or implants cost? I have failed dismally to find an actual answer to this. The nearest I can find is the price-list at Marie Stopes International, which won't, of course, be charging exactly the cost. They make a "profit" on this price-list, as the website says "Some of the money from the fees people pay in our UK centres goes towards supporting our work in developing countries". Furthermore, it's going to include the cost of the personnel ... but then again, it would also cost the NHS/government in personnel as well as simple costs.

An injection, at Marie Stopes, costs £25 and must be repeated monthly, so there is an annual cost of £100, ignoring follow-up appointments and so on. An implant costs £240, but lasts three years, giving an annual cost of £60. Let us therefore assume that the implant would be most cost-effective - it also having the benefits of being removable if the girl has a bad reaction to it, and of the implanting giving minimum disruption to the girl's life.

If the actual cost were £60, therefore, the cost for 1999 of implementing this project would have been £225,000,000. Even if we assume that Marie Stopes International makes around a 50% "profit" to spend elsewhere, that's still over a hundred million pounds. Or some £11,000 per pregnancy it might prevent ...

There have to be cheaper ways.

There are many other good arguments against this proposal. But I've spent hours randomly calculating the cost, so I'm going to stop arguing now. Hopefully everyone can see that it's mad anyway.

Benefits and the NHS

The petition is entitled make people pay a proportion of their benefits to the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"all people who are hard working tax payers have to pay for the NHS out of their wages, what about people who have never worked? They should have a reduction in their benefits and it SHOWN that the reduction is to pay for the NHS. There are many 16 year old mums who have never paid anything into the system who get the services of midwife, hospital for the birth etc etc .WHO DO THEY THINK PAYS FOR THIS SERVICE.If you are to reduce the benefit it may make them think twice if they can see that someone has to pay."

The fundamental problem with this bit of lunacy (aside from the usual problem that the petitioner has clearly never discussed being on benefits with anyone who's actually on them) is that, of course, benefits are carefully calculated (in theory at least) to be a small but possible amount on which to live. If one took some of it away to "pay for the NHS", one would need, to be just, to increase the benefits by the same amount ... In other words, you'd increase admin complications (which would cost money) without getting any back - and what evidence do we have that this would "make [anyone] think twice"? None. Think twice about what, for that matter. It's a bit blooming late for these hypothetical teenage mums to think twice, isn't it?

Yoga in Schools

The petition is entitled make yoga a national curriculum requirement for all children between the ages of 10 - 16 and the explanatory notes say

"Make yoga compulsory to improve childrens physical and spiritual health and development."

I can't help thinking that the people who'd benefit most from this proposal are yoga teachers. It's safe to assume that most schools don't have a current teacher who can teach yoga, so either they'd have to contract out or they'd have to get their teachers trained pronto.

But mostly I just think that this is barking. In and of itself it's restrictive (I prefer schools to have some flexibility of what they teach, within reason; if they want to teach yoga or aikido or whatever as part of PE, that's great, but let them choose), but most especially the use of the word "spiritual" has my batshit detector going off wildly.

Prove from (double-blind, well-controlled) studies in a few schools that yoga is beneficial and then perhaps you can advocate it for everywhere. :)

Eugenics

The petition is entitled STOP ALLOWING JUST ANYONE TO GIVE BIRTH!! and the explanatory notes say

"How hard is it to take home an animal from a shelter?Endless personal checks &weekly visits before you can think about taking that animal home!Adopting a child?Not just anyonecan do it &there’re very good reasons why Think about it anybody can give birth, anybody can have a child Anybody!?No checks no way of ensuring the child will be cared for &provided for No way of checking if that child is being born into a life of drug &alcohol abuse or if the mother is stable &can offer her child a secure home &give her child what it needs Let’s not be ignorant, in the world we live in today if a child is to survive it needs more than love Let’s give the children of the future what they deserve & stop the starving, homeless &emotionally screwed up children suffering anymoreStop allowing anyone to have a childWhen you& I are no more &the generations after that &after that who will be here?? We need to make a big change &where better to start than with the beginning of a life Please supportme"

Wow. Get the grammar! Get the punctuation! Get the obsession with eugenics!

I suppose I should first point out how unworkable the plan is: people who want to have children will do, and will find a way around any restrictions. This is not conducive to happy or healthy children. It is simply not functionally possible to control people's fertility.

But even if you could find a functional way of doing it, it is impossible to imagine it not becoming a source of abuse in itself. There is no way of measuring "deserving humans" - no way of being certain that a person will be a good parent, or not an abusive parent. What's more, situations can change in the sixteen years of childhood; a perfectly stable person at a child's birth may be a hopeless addict and abuser by the time the child is a toddler. As soon as you draw a line saying "this person is worthy and this person is not" you create divisions in society. And as soon as you allow such lines to be drawn, people will start trying to abuse them - people who believe that, say, only white people should have children, or only educated people should have children, or ... whatever their preferred form of discrimination.

Inciting Weight-loss

The petition is entitled make it a criminal offence to insight unhealthy weight loss or publicly miss-represent a dietary regime as being scientifically approved and the explanatory notes say

"I would like the prime minister to table an act of parliament that will make it illegal to encourage the public (i.e. using media designed for mass distribution) to lose weight beyond what would be considered, by a properly certified and UK government accredited medical professional, to be reasonable.

I would also like the prime minister to make it illegal to publicly (i.e. using media designed for mass distribution) endorse a dietary regime using a title that implies they are a recognised medical professional when either the title used is not UK recognised or the title does not directly pertain to a medical professional dealing with dietary requirements.

Further more I would like these offenses to have global scope in that even if the offense was committed on non UK soil, if the media could be disseminated to the UK then that person would be arrested the very moment they stepped on UK soil."

Yes, I'd like "Dr" Gillian to have committed a crime, too. (If you've been living on Mars lately, the Bad Science blog should fill you in.) But I somehow think that this isn't going to hold water. I suspect that most of the mad diet advocates would argue that they don't advocate weight loss to below a BMI of 20 or whatever other criterion you used, and would probably be able to find a relatively respectable and respectably-credentialed medic to back them up, too.

Also I'm fairly sure that the "global scope" thing would fall foul of several other laws, though I don't know what or why - it's just a guess.

More Healthcare Reimbursement

The petition is entitled confirm any person who having paid National Insurance contributions is denied National Health Service treatment on grounds of being overweight, a smoker or any situation that results in non compliance will be entitled to compensation as follows. a - full reimbusement of lifetime contributions via National Insurance to include interest back to day 1 calculated at 2% above the average Bank Rate for each and every year.b - When legislation is introduced the Government lists conditions/addictions that render individuals ineligible for treatment and confirm with immediate effect they will no longer be required to make any further contributions. Refunds under (a) will be made to relevant persons.c- any person who has made contribuions but is denied medical treatment on any grounds is entitled to compensation at the rate of £25,000 per annum. In the event of death arising from non treatment to contributors dependents to receive compensation based upon period of life expectancy had adequate treatment been applied and the explanatory notes say

"Paying National Insurance contributions in the belief if you are ill you are legally entitled to medical treatment is now being challenged by the Health Minister who implies certain ailments conditions or addictions may longer qualify. Once non qualifiers are established those persons should make no further contributions and be entitled for refund of all contributions made plus interest. You cannot charge for a service you do not intend to supply, commonly known in"

For pity's sake, is it so hard to do a quick search to make sure you don't duplicate another petition? I've written about this already, dammit!! See the post Healthcare Reimbursement.

Rationing of Fatty Foods

The petition is entitled reintroduce food rationing to aid in the fight against obesity and the explanatory notes say

"Fatty foods should be rationed so that no one can overeat to such an extent that they become a burden to the NHS."

I hate the phrase "nanny state" and I generally object when people describe proposals as being a step towards one.

However.

NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! YOU CAN'T HAVE MY CHOCOLATE. OR MY CHEEEEEEEEEESE!

Thank you.

Healthcare Reimbursement

The petition is entitled make provision to financially reimburse anyone that may be denied state provided healthcare and the explanatory notes say

"If this government intends to restrict healthcare based on an individuals lifestyle choices such as obesity or smoking it is reasonable to expect that if that person is or has been a taxpayer they are entitled to be reimbursed all past and future contributions to NHS funding as a proportion of their total tax burden so that they may make their own healthcare provisons."

This is, presumably, about a Labour Party plan (explanation in a BBC article) to allow patients to sign "health contracts" whereby, say, a person who wanted nicotine patches to help them to give up smoking would agree to attend a course to help them to give up. This does not yet appear to be Labour policy, only something that might be in the next manifesto. So "this government" would not appear to have any such plans. Consequently, campaigning to "this Prime Minister" might seem a little foolish.

Of course, the petitioner could have got the wrong end of the stick, and be complaining about doctors' entirely justifiably refusing surgery to someone whose health is so poor (as a consequence of their weight or their smoking or whatever) that the surgery is more dangerous than not-surgery. (Again, there's a BBC article about this.) I feel rather strongly that doctors and surgeons need to have this right. I was very angry when my grandfather, who was overweight and had heart troubles, but insisted on having a general anaesthetic for his knee replacement. It was frankly extremely dangerous for him to have a general anaesthetic in his physical condition, and completely unnecessary - except that he insisted. Fortunately it was all OK, but it was a foolish and unnecessary risk.

As far as I understand it, the "health contracts" plan would relate only to treatment highly specific to the condition (obesity, smoking-addiction, whatever), not to any other NHS treatment. So the "reimbursement" plan of the petition seems entirely unnecessary. But then - the petition itself sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of someone who's unaware of what's actually being proposed and who by.

Fast Food Adverts

The petition is entitled legislate that fast food outlets should either show adverts that accurately reflect the meal we actually get, or serve meals that are the same as those shown in the advert and the explanatory notes say

"Ever wondered why your burger, or sandwich, or other fast food meal looks like a very poor cousin of that shown in the advert or glossy pictures in the window? So have I. It's time this practice ended. Not only would it be a useful tool in the war on obesity, it would make these fast food providers either improve the quality of the food they serve, or improve the honesty of their marketing.

Now, I will admit to occasionally succumbing to the strange temptation that is a Whopper With Cheese. I must say that I have never looked at one and thought "what! This is unrecognisable! It's not what the picture is!" It's the smell that lures me, anyway, not the pictures. Which to my way of thinking are reasonable approximations of the food, anyway.

No, really. If you don't like the difference between what's pictured on the menu and what you get when you order, stop ordering. Most places you can find some kind of alternative. And if you can't, you should have been better prepared.

Size 0 clothes

The petition is entitled stop Asda stocking American size 0 (size 4 UK) clothes for teenagers and women and the explanatory notes read

"Asda are going to stock size 0 clothes (equivalent of age 7) for teenagers and women. These have a miniscule 22" waist. This is very irresponsible and could cause anorexia or promote it or help anorexic women stay that way. It should not be allowed for size 0 clothes to be stocked!"

I have a couple of issues with this:

1. Size 0 is American. It's UK size 4. Why use the American size? Oh yes - that's right - the shock factor. Clever. Not.
2. There are, in fact, some teenagers and adults who are naturally very small. They are few and far between, but as a woman who is quite naturally outside the normal ranges in a different respect, I am not in favour of legislating against rare things that make shopping easier for the unusually-sized or -shaped!
3. I'm damned sure Asda's not alone in this sort of stock choice. Why single them out?

Doctors' Ties

The petition is entitled ban the wearing of neckties by doctors in NHS hospitals, and the explanatory notes say

Neckties are a major source of infection in our hospitals. Whilst examining patients doctors often have their ties dragged across the patient's body and bedclothes. Doctors then go from patient to patient taking germs with them. Neckties are almost never cleaned by men and this is a clear public health issue of the utmost importance!

Their are more people who die needlessly in hospital from infections that they caught INSIDE the hospital than die in road traffic accidents each year for the whole country. This is tragic and it's time to do something about it."

Actually, then, this is quite a reasonable petition. I believe it to be true. It makes logical sense. Once you read the explanation. Lesson for the petition creators: if you want browsers of the Health, well-being and care category of petitions to look at your petitions instead of sniggering at them, make the title stand up as a logical thing in and of itself. Please!