I believe wholeheartedly in consultation, engagement, empowerment, and ownership. But not as just buzz words to drop into meetings. Rather, I believe in what these words stand for at their best: genuine conversations between practitioners, partners, patients, policy makers and even politicians; shared insights into what works and what needs work; and a commitment to agreeing and delivering change, and all that that entails.
Whistleblowing can be discouraged in subtle ways to do with working culture in an organisation: Fear of being exposed as a 'grass' or not a team player. All these can chill a career and make a working life hell on earth.
Much as City firms have benefited significantly from developing innovative flexible working schemes to attract and retain talented staff, it strikes me that a solution that could go a long way in addressing GP recruitment issues is actually to encourage more flexible working, for both sexes, not to try and restrict it.
It is surprising that the Conservative MP Andrew Lansley, who was removed from his role as health secretary in Britain after such a disastrous tenure, is David Cameron's top choice for a role will be dealing with such an intimidating to-do list.
No one says they want to get rid of the NHS. Everyone praises it, across all parties. It is about as powerful a symbol of goodness that we have, so it would be too dangerous not to. But for decades now, there has nevertheless been a systematic undermining of its core values.
Social care services are crucial to ensuring elderly and disabled people can remain independent, allowing them to stay in their homes and out of hospital. At present, pensioners are being forced to stay in hospital simply because there is no space available for them in care homes, or their own homes are unsuitable.
Awareness of stroke and its symptoms is going from strength to strength, looking at the success of the annual and well-recognisable F.A.S.T stroke campaign substantiates why this worthwhile activity must continue year on year.
The trouble is who's going to be brave enough to stand up - particularly in the run up to a general election - and state that they think having a massive pot of money to help treat cancer patients needs a rethink? All the political announcements so far have been about extending the CDF and nobody is really talking about reform because it is not exactly a vote winner. We need to engage the public in this important debate as it's one that gets to the very heart of our health care system, and the value that we as a society place on the quality of life for all patients.
Recovery is not a straightforward process. There are plenty of treatment options available (unfortunately at a price, but hopefully this will change...but they do exist), and some treatments are more appropriate for different types of eating disorders, others suit a person better.
Not only are developers ruining London for the people who actually live here, the development of HS2 is going to destroy some of Britain's most idyllic countryside, all for a train line that many will not be able to afford to travel on.
If I could have things any other way, I would not choose to spend so much time planning my meals, working out my feelings to avoid potential anxiety attacks later on in the day, and all the money I and my parents have spent on therapy over the years.
Funding is a major issue. We know that specialist nurses save money - fewer patients turn up in the consultant's clinic, at A&E, or get admitted to hospital. Waiting times are reduced and preventable problems are addressed.
Finally, I figured out the reason for the disturbance. It was none other than Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the National Health Service, spinning in his grave. Yes, I was watching Channel 4's NHS: £2 Billion a Week & Counting.
The Cancer Drugs Fund gave me access to the drugs I needed to shrink my tumour and enabled a team of highly skilled and courageous surgeons to prolong my life not just for a few months but for many years... So how do you think I felt when I discovered that the drug that saved by life would, along with a number of other drugs and treatments, no longer be available to cancer patients?
It is clear that researching rare conditions often leads to greater insights about other conditions with similar characteristics - this helps develop more targeted treatments, and move away from a 'one size fits all' approach to medicine.
Should care for "self-inflicted" alcohol, drug, smoking and obesity problems be funded by the NHS? Should cosmetic surgery in any form be available free of charge? Should the most expensive new cancer drugs be funded, even though they only benefit a tiny handful of the population and cost millions?