Introduce a screening programme for prostate cancer, starting with high-risk men
The Parliament petitions site records 101,932 signatures for this petition, which closed on 13 July 2026. The Government responded on 26 February 2026. A debate is scheduled for 26 October 2026.
The petition
The petition's creator is not named in the Petitions site's published record. Quoted in full from the UK Parliament petitions site.
Introduce a screening programme for prostate cancer, starting with high-risk men
We are calling on the Government to reassess the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) draft recommendation not to offer prostate cancer screening to anyone except men with BRCA1/2 genetic variants, and to introduce screening for all high-risk men.
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men yet has no screening programme.
We disagree with the UK NSC’s analysis of the evidence and the weight it has placed on avoiding unintended harms. We believe the Committee has fixated on potential harms that have already dramatically reduced, while under-weighting the very real benefits of early detection. The analysis has not kept pace with modern practice or acknowledged how this would be an improvement on the current inefficient and inequitable system.
Targeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. Early diagnosis saves lives.
The Government's response
The Government published its response on 26 February 2026; the petitions site lists the Department of Health and Social Care as responsible. Its summary:
The UK National Screening Committee consulted on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation and will make a final recommendation soon. The Government will then consider whether to accept it.
The opening 291 words of the 801-word response:
The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) makes recommendations to ministers and the NHS across the four nations of the United Kingdom, based on an assessment of high-quality, peer reviewed evidence on whether screening for a certain condition would do more good than harm at reasonable cost. The UK NSC considered the current diagnostic and treatment pathways and consulted on their findings. The evidence package can be found at https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/11/28/uk-nsc-opens-consultation-on-draft-prostate-cancer-screening-recommendation/
Screening is specifically for people without symptoms or a diagnosis. The process must therefore minimise harm, such as unnecessary treatment or anxiety resulting from false positive test results. This level of caution is less relevant for people with diagnosed conditions or already in clinical care. They have sought clinical care or advice for a problem. They are in direct contact with a clinician so they can discuss the merits or otherwise of tests and treatments, rather than simply being provided with generic information to read. They have symptoms or a reason for concern. This means their test is much more likely to represent a true positive result, unlike in screening when people have a greater chance of receiving a false positive result. People in clinical care expect follow-up and face a smaller risk of harm from predictive tests. The ethical position, the ability of an individual to discuss issues with a clinician, and the likelihood of having a condition, all therefore differ significantly between clinical management and screening. Screening can do harm, as well as good (benefit). It is also possible for someone to experience both the harms and benefits of screening at the same time. For example, a man may live longer due to their prostate cancer being identified and treated but also live with serious side effects of treatment.
Read the full response on the petitions site.
Where the signatures came from
Signatures came from 650 constituencies. Measured against each constituency's electorate at the 2024 general election, the most came from Droitwich and Evesham, with 4.7 signatures per 1,000 electors (357 in all).
101,628 of the signatures were from the UK and 304 from elsewhere, by the location signers gave.
| Constituency | Signatures | Electorate, July 2024 | Per 1,000 electors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Droitwich and Evesham | 357 | 76,624 | 4.7 |
| West Worcestershire | 369 | 79,246 | 4.7 |
| Central Suffolk and North Ipswich | 314 | 73,046 | 4.3 |
| Maldon | 337 | 78,282 | 4.3 |
| Torbay | 330 | 76,185 | 4.3 |
| Harwich and North Essex | 322 | 76,296 | 4.2 |
| Isle of Wight West | 226 | 55,406 | 4.1 |
| Suffolk Coastal | 308 | 74,522 | 4.1 |
| Wyre Forest | 316 | 77,329 | 4.1 |
| South East Cornwall | 287 | 72,654 | 4.0 |
| Region | Signatures |
|---|---|
| South East | 16,528 |
| East of England | 12,006 |
| South West | 11,323 |
| North West | 11,062 |
| West Midlands | 9,608 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 8,112 |
| East Midlands | 7,949 |
| Scotland | 7,767 |
| London | 5,667 |
| Wales | 5,522 |
| North East | 4,298 |
| Northern Ireland | 1,337 |
Debate in Parliament
The Petitions Committee has scheduled a debate for 26 October 2026.
Source and receipt
- https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/751472.jsonUK Parliament Petitions API · read 2026-10-15 · SHA-256
8f7effdedd5d86de… - The petition on petition.parliament.uk
The petition's words are its creator's and the response is the Government's; this site quotes both and gives no view on either. Signature counts can still change while a petition is open. To report an error, send a correction request.