'True English gentleman' leaves £1m to Andover hospice
"The hospice were outstanding in what they did," said Mr Adams, who affectionately referred to Mr Fuller as his uncle. He explained that the hospice provided on-call care at home, allowing Mr Fuller to remain where he felt most comfortable.The most important thing for his uncle "was to be at home" and the hospice were committed to making that happen, he said. Mr Adams said his uncle was a "fascinating" man and "an old school English gentleman" whose final wish in his will was for "everything to go to charity".
'Extraordinary generosity'
He said his "work, values, and quiet generosity have left a permanent mark on Andover and its people"."This final gift is exactly in character, - a legacy not just of money but of dignity, dedication, and care for others."Clare Scheckter, chair of trustees at the hospice, said: "This extraordinary act of generosity will help to fund principally our community nursing services, from which Leonard Fuller benefited, and will also augment our new Forever Fund, which has been established to assist with securing the future financial stability of the hospice."She said Mr Fuller's donation was a testament to the "professionalism and kindness" their clinicians, who care for 10 inpatients and almost 300 outpatients in the community.She added that his "kindness and vision will live on in the care we are able to offer to others".
You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lidl issues urgent ‘do not eat' warning over popular product amid allergy fear
A major UK supermarket has issued a product recall with a 'do not eat' warning for one if its popular meals. Lidl GB has told consumers who bought the Red Hen 4 Tempura Chicken Steaks 380g to check whether they are part of the affected batch. The product is being recalled because milk has not been boldened in the ingredients section - with the supermarket warning this could pose a health risk to people intolerant to milk. 'Lidl GB is recalling the above-mentioned product due to milk not being in bold within the back of pack ingredients,' the supermarket said in its product recall notice. 'This may be a possible health risk for anyone with an allergy to milk. 'If you have bought the above product and have an allergy to milk we advise you not to eat it. 'Customers are asked to return this product to the nearest store where a full refund will be given.' The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said the product 'contains milk making it a possible health risk for anyone with an allergy or intolerance to milk or milk constituents'. 'Lidl is recalling the above product from customers and has been advised to contact the relevant allergy support organisations, which will tell their members about the recall,' the FSA added. 'The company has also issued a point-of-sale notice to its customers. These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.' The recall only applies to the packs with the following 'best before' dates: 11/12/2026 16/12/2026 22/12/2026 30/12/2026 16/01/2027
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Streeting should ‘channel Thatcher' and introduce prostate screening
Wes Streeting should 'channel Margaret Thatcher ' and introduce screening for prostate cancer without delay, one of the world's leading experts has said. Prof Jonathan Waxman, the founder of the charity Prostate Cancer UK, says the Health Secretary should learn from Thatcher's decision to introduce routine mammograms for women, which he said had saved 3,000 lives a year since they were introduced in 1988. The Telegraph has launched a campaign calling for the introduction of targeted screening for prostate cancer so those at high risk are automatically offered tests. Prostate Cancer UK has submitted evidence in favour of the policy to the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC), which is currently considering the matter, with a decision expected later this year. Writing for The Telegraph, Prof Waxman said: 'There are interesting parallels between the prostate cancer and breast cancer screening stories. 'In the 1970s, before breast cancer screening was introduced by Government dictat, the medical consensus was, and, you have guessed it, that early diagnosis through screening mammography would not save lives. 'Mrs T, regardless of the medical consensus, waved her handbag at the doctors, ignored the consensus, and launched a screening programme for breast cancer. And the result? Screening mammography, together with treatment advances, has led to a massive improvement in survival from breast cancer. 'Before screening, just 65 per cent of patients with breast cancer survived and now over 80 per cent are cured as a result of early detection and better treatment. 'And how does this improvement manifest in the real world? Around 3,000 fewer women die each year in the UK from breast cancer than before the screening programme was introduced.' The emeritus professor at Imperial College London said Prostate Cancer UK led a consortium of men's health charities to collectively inform the committee on the importance of targeted screening for those at highest risk. But he said the NHS should act now so that GPs do far more to help men at risk of prostate cancer. He urged the NHS to rewrite its guidance so that family doctors are told to proactively start conversations with men about the PSA blood tests which can detect the disease. Current guidance says that men can ask for a test, though some GPs rebuff them. For younger men, including those with a family history of disease, offering a test is down to the clinical judgment of GPs about. In both cases, the onus is on patients to seek help in the first place, with many men including those with family histories of prostate cancer unaware they are at heightened risk of the disease. Prof Waxman said the NHS should rewrite its advice so that GPs are told that they should bring up prostate cancer with all patients who might be at extra risk. He added that the guidelines should suggest that GPs start conversations with men from the age of 45 at highest risk, so those who wish to can obtain a PSA test. 'This puts the power of informed choice back in the hands of men who need it the most and is a crucial step on the path to early diagnosis,' he says. In the past, screening advisers have rejected the practice on the grounds that the tests are too unreliable, and could result in too many men undergoing needless procedures. However, in recent years the back-up diagnostics used to confirm the initial test findings have significantly improved. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'This Government has been clear we would like to see screening in place, but the decision must be evidence-led. 'The UK National Screening Committee is looking at this as a priority – including reviewing the evidence for screening men with a family history of prostate cancer. 'While the review is taking place we are getting on with improving cancer treatment and prevention, as well as funding tens of millions of pounds of research – GPs should consider risk factors and use clinical judgment when considering if patients need a prostate cancer test.' Prostate cancer is a lot more than a nuisance By Jonathan Waxman Sixty years ago, around 10,000 people in the UK were diagnosed annually with prostate cancer. Currently over 50,000 men are diagnosed each year and prostate cancer has the dreadful distinction of being the commonest cancer in men. In parallel, the number of prostate cancer deaths has increased from 3,300 to over 12,000 men annually. So, what to do? We can hope that the treatment of prostate cancer will improve and improve, and cures are found. Treatment is getting better. Thankfully, in 2025, well over 80 per cent of men with prostate cancer that has not spread beyond the prostate will be cured and the duration of survival for men with cancer that has spread has doubled compared with 25 years ago. These improvements have come because of modern medicine's marvellous miracles, developing from brilliant university research and big pharma's R & D. Prostate Cancer UK has invested over £120m in research over the years. But clearly despite the gloss of shiny medical breakthroughs, prostate cancer remains a fundamentally unpleasant problem, and a lot more than a nuisance. What can be done? Find it early, you say? Yes, that would seem logical. How do we do this? Well, if we want to find prostate cancer early then the obvious answer is to screen for prostate cancer. There is no UK screening programme for the early detection of prostate cancer, a cancer which is often without symptoms. The National Screening Committee is currently considering the role of screening for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer UK has led a consortium of men's health charities to collectively inform the committee, which advises government, on the importance of targeted screening for those at highest risk. There are interesting parallels between the prostate cancer and breast cancer screening stories. In the 1970s, before breast cancer screening was introduced by Government dictat, the medical consensus was, and, you have guessed it, that early diagnosis through screening mammography would not save lives. Mrs T, regardless of the medical consensus, waved her handbag at the doctors, ignored the consensus, and launched a screening programme for breast cancer. And the result? Screening mammography together with treatment advances have led to a massive improvement in survival from breast cancer. Before screening, just 65 per cent of patients with breast cancer survived and now over 80 per cent are cured as a result of early detection and better treatment. And how does this improvement manifest in the real world? Around 3000 fewer women die in the UK from breast cancer each year than before the screening programme was introduced. To return to the debate on screening for prostate cancer. We are now at a critical inflection point in the history of prostate cancer screening. Last year, Prostate Cancer UK published research that showed prostate cancer diagnosis is safer and more accurate than ever before, and this in part is thanks to research the charity funded leading to MRI – Magnetic Resonance Imaging – being introduced into the diagnostic pathway. The National Screening Committee, under the iron baton of its excellent chair, is currently deliberating on the evidence for and against screening for prostate cancer and will issue a report this year. In heavily trailed remarks, Wes Streeting has indicated that he is in favour of screening but not for everyone, just for selective high risk groups of men. We at Prostate Cancer UK welcome this ministerial support, for it is also our view that there is a need for screening, and we believe the evidence is now there for targeted screening. We welcome his remarks at a time when we are about to launch TRANSFORM, a multi-centre screening trial using sophisticated technologies based on current diagnostic tools, an adaptive trial that is open to new screening tests. Prostate Cancer UK's trial invests £42m in a very long-term campaign to assess the survival benefits of modern screening methods. So, who are Mr Streeting's selective high risk groups of men at increased risk of prostate cancer? These are men with family histories of prostate cancer who constitute 1 to 5 per cent of all diagnosed patients, and black men, who have a one in four risk of prostate cancer, which is twice the risk of white men. What to do whilst we await the Screening Committee's conclusions? Currently GP guidelines concerning testing for prostate cancer are outdated. We urgently need these NHS guidelines updated to empower GPs to proactively start conversations about PSA testing with men from the age of 45 at highest risk. This puts the power of informed choice back in the hands of men who need it the most and is a crucial step on the path to early diagnosis. So, yes, prostate cancer is a bit of a nuisance, but let us see if we can do something about that nuisance. Prof Jonathan Waxman OBE is the founder and president of Prostate Cancer UK
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Please save our anorexic daughter, family pleads with NHS
The family of one of Britain's sickest anorexia patients has issued a desperate appeal to the NHS to offer the 25-year-old a bed in an eating disorder unit. Patricia, as she is known under a court order, weighs 22kg (3st 6 lbs) – the average weight of a seven-year-old – and has a body mass index of 9, making her among the most unwell eating disorder patients in the country. On Thursday, her parents and aunt won a landmark legal battle overturning a court order that had blocked the NHS from treating her anorexia for 21 months. Mrs Justice Arbuthnot ruled that doctors must be permitted to provide life-saving treatment, including the option of force-feeding, which had been denied under an earlier court order. This is the first time the Court of Protection has reversed a ruling to withhold eating disorder care. 'In danger of deteriorating' On Saturday, her family issued a desperate appeal for the NHS to act on the judgment and help save her life. They told The Telegraph said: 'We are incredibly grateful to the judge. Her ruling has removed the legal barriers that prevented Patricia from being admitted to a specialist unit for almost two years. 'But unless a consultant steps forward now to offer her a bed, she will still die. Patricia is back home, still dangerously underweight and in danger of deteriorating. 'Every suitable unit in the country has been contacted, but for months none has replied to say they have a bed. 'We know how fragmented the system is, but Patricia doesn't have time for NHS bureaucracy to fail her. If a bed isn't found in the next few days, it may be too late. 'We're not asking for special treatment – just for our brilliant, bright and loving daughter and niece to receive the same care as any other critically ill patient. 'Please, if you run an NHS unit for complex eating disorder cases that is autism-friendly and works collaboratively with patients, check your referral inbox. 'We need every consultant psychiatrist with an available bed to ask their team, 'can we help save this young woman's life?' Patricia can only survive if someone says yes.' 'Don't let bureaucracy cost Patricia her life' Patricia's parents and aunt also issued a direct plea to the Health Secretary, who framed it as part of his war on red tape when he announced plans to scrap NHS England in March. 'Please, Mr Streeting, do not let bureaucracy cost Patricia her life,' they said. 'If a consultant with a bed does not see the referral in time, and she dies as a result, it would be a tragedy beyond words.' The original 2023 judgment in Patricia's case, issued by the now-retired Mr Justice Moor, followed a decision by clinicians at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust that her anorexia was 'untreatable'. The judge agreed, finding that although Patricia lacked the capacity to make treatment decisions, she had the 'autonomy' to refuse care. He claimed she was 'days or even hours' from death and ruled that force-feeding was not in her best interests. She could, he said, be discharged for palliative care at home. But Patricia, who has always insisted she wants to live, defied expectations. She survived the next 18 months, but without access to eating disorder treatment, her condition worsened. By March, she weighed just 19kg, with a BMI of 7.3 and was at 'immediate' risk of death. Over eight hearing days between March and May, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot heard evidence from Patricia's parents, a psychologist, gastroenterologist and several psychiatrists — including Dr Ali Ibrahim, a consultant who gave a pro bono opinion in favour of compulsory treatment to restore Patricia to a healthy weight. He acknowledged the trauma that force-feeding can cause, but cited outcomes showing patients often recover and later feel grateful for the care they had once resisted. The family was represented pro bono by barrister Oliver Lewis, who worked for more than 150 hours on the case. In court, he argued Patricia is so severely ill she 'cannot distinguish between broader wishes ['I want to live'] and the narrower ones regarding life-saving interventions ['I don't want NG feeding'].' The submission from her parents and aunt included increasingly desperate WhatsApp messages they had received from Patricia pleading for help. On 28 February, she wrote to her aunt: 'I don't want to die… I want to walk up mountains. I want to swim in the sea. I want cuddles and kisses. I want to play and have fun. 'I'm so so scared. I'm terrified. Please help me more. WE [sic] haven't got much time to play with. I'll never walk if we don't sort things now.' Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, where she is being monitored, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, which provides her mental health care, opposed the family's application. Both argued that force-feeding would be futile, a position that appears to contradict NHS guidance that anorexia is not a terminal illness and should be treated. The trusts can be named after The Telegraph successfully challenged court reporting restrictions twice. NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board, which commissions Patricia's care, can also be identified. In her judgment, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot ruled in favour of the parents' application, stating: 'I agreed with Mr Lewis when he said, echoing Dr Ibrahim's observation, that by 'respecting [Patricia's] autonomy, the court [in 2023] had permitted her anorexia to call the shots'. The court found Patricia remained incapable of making treatment decisions, and that the previous ruling had failed to protect her welfare.
