This site is intended for health professionals only

The elderly should pay for their own care “when they die”, says Lansley, while Jewish and Muslim group come together to defend circumcision

The elderly may have to fork out up to £100,000 before the Government steps in to pay for their care, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced yesterday. The White Paper on social care reform makes the health headlines in the UK's leading newspapers today, with proposals including suggestions that elderly could "pay when they die" by borrowing money from local Government for care in the meantime so as to not to be forced to sell their homes – until they die.

The Telegraph quotes charities and campaign groups calling it a ‘betrayal', while papers including the Independent write that the figure suggested by Lansley is nearly three times the £35,000 cap suggested by Andrew Dilnot, the author of the independent report into care funding.

On the upside, some the elderly of the future could benefit from a study by scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine which mapped early signs of Alzheimers up to 25 years before the onset of the disease, with the trial including patients in the UK, US and Australia. UK experts have said the ability to detect Alzheimer's early would give the best chance of successful treatment, writes the BBC.

In Germany, outrage has focused on a different stage of life altogether as European Jewish and Muslim groups have come out with an unusual joint protest statement to protect circumcision of their young boys. It has come after a Cologne court ruled that circumcision of young boys amounted to ‘bodily harm'. The BBC writes that while the ruling doesn't apply in all of Germany, Germany's Medical Association has told doctors not to perform circumcisions.

The statement was signed by leaders of groups including the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Parliament, the European Jewish Association, Germany's Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs and the Islamic Centre Brussels.

"We consider this to be an affront (to) our basic religious and human rights," it said.