| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - nice
1. Tell MTA No Fare and Toll Hike 
As you may know Metropolitan Transportation Authority which operates New York City Subway, buses and two commuter railroads, and 7 toll bridges and they are planning to increase their fare and toll on March 2013.
We are asking anyone who live in USA, live in New York or stay in New York to tell MTA no fare & toll hike.
This fare hike will also affect Bee-Line Buses in Westchester County and NICE Bus in Nassau County
2. Demand Veolia To Restore N21, N23/N27 Buses
Veolia Transportation took over Long Island Bus formelly operated by Metropolitan Transportation on January 1st, 2012, under new name Nassau Inter County Express Service because Edward P. Magano refused to pay $26 Million to MTA, so Nassau County Buses got privatized.
After service implention on April 8th, 2012, some NICE Bus riders are not having nice experience.
3. Stop Wisconsin killing Charlotte this Christmas
Worst Christmas story: Wisconsin vs. deer, article by John Kass @Chicago Tribune. The State of Wisconsin wants to kill Charlotte a deer, who thinks she is a horse.
Charlotte was rescued by Marvin Graaf and is being threatened with up to eight months in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.00. Some 15 months ago a mother deer and her fawn were hit by a car. The mother died and the fawn had been dragged by the car. Only her ear was torn. Charlotte stayed in the same spot where her mother died and wouldn't leave. A neighbor knew a man that had rescued other animals. For four days Charlotte, the fawn, just stood there where her mother died. She wouldn't eat. She was dying. Marvin was able to nurse her back to good health.
In August, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources sent officers to Graaf's home to kill Charlotte. Graaf refused to release Charlotte to them. She threatens no one by staying on Graaf's farm running with her horse friends.
4. Demand NICE Remove Stakeholder Only Mental Health Service Users In Consultation Processes
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) consults on new draft quality standards and guidance on service user experience in mental health and patient experience in NHS services and has launched a new consultation.
HOWEVER an interested party has discovered that the only people able to contribute are 'Registered Stakeholders'. and finding out who these are, and being able to get your views represented is a process which guarantees little, if any success.
Some may not wish to provide personal stories to Registered Stakeholders (strangers), and there is no other facility to have YOUR important views heard.
This means the results cannot be fully representative of the Service User Community as a whole and we would call on NICE to consider changing the process by which they determine and gather the evidence they use in their guidelines.
This is especially important during this traumatic period of changes to the NHS, cuts in Mental Health Service budgets and an increase in cases of mental illness.
See http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/PatientExpAndAdultMentalHealthServiceUserGuidelineQS.jsp
In a new draft guidance, published on May 6th 2011, NICE has not recommended dasatinib, nilotinib or high-dose imatinib for the treatment of CML (chronic myeloid leukaemia) that is resistant to standard-dose (400mg) imatinib.
The Committee noted the wide range of results across the interventions. The Committee acknowledged the clinical specialist view that for CML that is truly resistant to standard-dose imatinib, high-dose imatinib was unlikely to be as beneficial as dasatinib and nilotinib, and that high-dose imatinib would be less well tolerated than dasatinib and nilotinib.
The Committee therefore agreed that in practice, dasatinib and nilotinib would be preferred over high-dose imatinib for people with imatinib-resistant CML.
The Committee also agreed that there was no good evidence to distinguish between dasatinib and nilotinib, a conclusion also supported by the clinical specialists.
The Committee concluded that it is clear that dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib provide clinical benefit for people with imatinib-resistant CML. However, the Committee agreed that the paucity of the evidence base means that the magnitude of the benefit is uncertain.
Interpretation ...
'We know these drugs are good- we know they are better than anything that has been used previously- but we can't measure exactly how good they have been or might be in future- '
We know that, ethically, there can never be the kind of trial that would prove beyond all doubt that these drugs really do work- therefore its better to deny access until such time that data from a randomised double blind 4 arm clinical trial has been collated and which proves beyond all doubt that 2nd generation TKI therapy translates into long term progression free survival for the majority of CML patients resistant to first line standard dose imatinib.
6. NICE: Be NICE to Cancer Patients
The Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML) Support Group have grave concerns about the provisional recommendation contained in the Appraisal Consultation Document of dasatinib and nilotinib for ‘imatinib intolerant’ Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia.
We question the wisdom behind the appraisal committee's decision to separate the two sub-groups of patients because we understand that it is difficult to separate 'intolerance' from 'resistance' with clinical precision. We also point out that in actual clinical practice, both categories of patients who have failed to respond to Glivec, already enjoy increased progression free survival and quality of life benefits from therapy with Tasigna and/or Sprycel within the UK and throughout Europe. Separating the two sub-sets of patients in order to assess the Glivec intolerant group in isolation is, in our view, not only cynical but absurd and unethical.
Should the appraisal committee's recommendations be upheld, patients with chronic or accelerated phase CML who prove to be intolerant to Glivec, will be offered other treatment options from a list of far less effective therapies used prior to the introduction of Glivec. Several of these options can in themselves be life threatening, most have well documented seriously debilitating side effects and one is purely palliative. With the exception of stem cell transplantation, which has relatively high morbidity and mortality rates, and for which is inappropriate for the majority, in almost all cases of CML the alternative options suggested by the committee, do nothing to halt the progression of the disease and for this reason alone are rarely used in current clinical practice.
7. Support Sands campaign on seeing and holding baby after death
Sands, stillbirth and neonatal death charity is very concerned that bereaved parents in the future may not be offered the opportunity to see and hold their baby after death. This is because current guidelines by NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) to midwifery units and to bereaved parents, on seeing and holding their baby after the baby has died, are currently open to misinterpretation.
This guideline (Clinical Guideline 45: Antenatal and postnatal mental health) consists of 4 different documents:
1. The full clinical guideline
2. Clinical management and service guidance
3. Quick reference guide
4. Information for people who use NHS services
In each of these the wording is slightly but significantly different. The current wording in the quick reference guide, which is specifically aimed at policy makers and midwifery staff states: “Do not routinely encourage mothers of infants who are stillborn or die soon after birth to see and hold the dead infant.” This is very different from the statement in the Full Clinical Guideline which reads ”women should not be encouraged to hold their dead baby if they do not wish to.”
Sands already has evidence that one Trust in England has adopted the wording in the Quick reference guide as policy for staff. As a result we are deeply concerned that this wording will be used by other Trusts across the UK if confusion over the guidelines continues.
Sands maintains that parents must continue to be offered choice about what is done when their baby dies, and that in order for choice to be real, it must be informed. Parents have a fundamental right to see their own baby, and no health professional, however well meaning, has the right to deny them this choice.