Hospital managers are planning to postpone thousands of non-emergency operations next Wednesday, because of the public sector strike over pension changes.
Patients across the UK have been sent letters warning them of the disruption.
Diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments will also be delayed, but hospitals insist emergency and critical care will not be affected.
Managers say they are preparing as they would for Christmas or bank holidays.
An estimated 400,000 nurses and healthcare assistants, as well as paramedics, physiotherapists, and support staff like cleaners and administrators have said they will join the action on 30 November over changes to public sector pensions.
However, the main medical unions - the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association are not taking part.
The Department of Health in England said it was expecting at least 5,500 non-emergency procedures like hip and knee operations to be rearranged.
More than 12,000 patients are likely to have diagnostic tests postponed, and 40,000 outpatient appointments are expected to be rescheduled.
On an average day, 28,000 patients have planned treatments or operations in England and there are 60,000 diagnostic tests.
However, managers say they are putting plans in place to make sure people can still get emergency or urgent care, in the way they do on bank holidays or at Christmas.
999 calls
Patients needing urgent treatment like chemotherapy and kidney dialysis will still be able to get it, and maternity units will remain open.
Calls to 999 will still be answered, but patients are being urged to think hard and only call if it is a genuine emergency.
The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, said health service workers should not take action that harms the interests of patients.
"I would ask staff to consider carefully whether going on strike is the right thing to do," he said.
Unison's head of health Christina Nacanea said members did not take strike action lightly.
"Most of them will first and foremost ensure that there is adequate cover is in place and that patients' safety is not compromised," she said,
"But by the same token they will be wanting to demonstrate their opposition to what the government is trying do to their pensions."
Once tower blocks were the answer to a housing crisis but many people came to hate them. With Sheffield's Park Hill estate being refurbished for its 50th birthday, can people learn to love them again, asks architect and broadcaster Maxwell Hutchinson.
1945 saw Britain as victors and victims - lost men, lost skills, lost industry, and, most significant, a critical shortage of homes.
The new Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee was a democratic victor but a scapegoat for government's failure to come up with solution to he critical homes' crisis.
Homes were the most pressing and seemingly insoluble of of all post war social issues. There was no labour force, no bricks, and acres of still-smoking slums.
Enter continental pre-war modernist architecture, forged in the creative minds of Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and others, and kept alive in the fertile minds of Britain's young architects, who had been plucked away from their studied enthusiasm for the new modernism to fight a war.
They returned, not demoralised by the fighting, but with a fervent zeal for modernism. They brought with them a solution, and government loved it. Housing problem? What problem? Build them high, make them in factories, and slot them into the waste lands of easily cleared slums.
There were no Nimbys [not-in-my-back-yard] then. No pressure groups, no conservation areas - British towns and cities were one huge brownfield site.
So the British tower block was born. Glasgow rebuilt a city with more tower blocks than any other city in Europe. It's still the case. London's East End cheered as cloud-scraping towers provided modernity, inside lavatories, central heating, Formica, and hot baths.
Tower blocks were the answer to a major housing crisis
But this vision did not last long. The middle class saw tower blocks as ghettos that they would rather pass by. Post-war families boomed, but the ideologically inspired dreams of cheap, quality, high-rise housing started to be neglected and demonised.
The tower block started to be seen as all that was misguided about post-war Britain. Maintenance was often abysmal - lifts failed, rubbish chutes were blocked, garages were burnt by vandals.
There had been doubts, but events triggered by an early morning cup of tea in a tower block in east London on 16 May 1968 turned the UK wholeheartedly against high-rise living and all that it stood for.
Beetham Tower, Manchester (2006): UK's tallest residential building
Trellick Tower, London (1972): Erno Goldfinger's building is now popular with residents
Park Hill estate in Sheffield (1961): Now Grade II* listed and being refurbished
Robin Hood Gardens (1972): Praised by some, but due for demolition
Ivy Hodge lived on the 18th floor Ronan Point, a 22-storey tower, named after Harry Louis Ronan, a chairman of the London borough of Newham's Housing Committee, which had opened on 11 March 1968.
As Hodge struck a match to light her stove, a gas explosion ripped the corner out of the tower. That corner fell down like a pile of loosely stacked tiles.
That was how the block and many more like it were built, story-high, load-bearing concrete panels stacked sky-high with what proved to be appallingly badly made joints. Hodge survived but four residents died and 17 were injured in the disaster.
Hodge's cup of tea had brought down more than the corner of one tower - it shattered the public's confidence in all high-rise dreaming.
The innate enthusiasm of the English for vernacular architecture took hold of the nation's mood - all would now be comfortable brick, near the ground with pitched roofs, garden front and rear. It would be just like good old England.
Some towers are now regarded as "cool"
Such was the government's overreaction at the events in Newham that they tore up their high post-war ideals and started an orgy of tower destruction.
The undeserved perception of failed idealism was celebrated by spectacular displays of demolition pyrotechnic. The tower block had failed and picnic parties sat on London's Hackney Marshes as tower after tower exploded and crashed into a pile of wasted idealism and dreams.
But all was not lost. Some energetic and visionary young architects and property developers have seen merit in the towers in the 21st Century.
Many of the old towers are still there - their very existence proving they are intrinsically sustainable. A tidy-up of the common areas, new lifts, a permanent concierge, entry-phone system and high-rise slums could become desirable homes.
London's famous Trellick Tower, by the architect Erno Goldfinger, is now a 30-storey style pile. That goes for towers in Glasgow, now swathed in multicoloured insulating overcladding.
Not all concrete ideals of the post-war building boom have survived, Alison and Peter Smithson's polemic Robin Hood Gardens in east London is not long for this life, despite the protestations of the architectural elite. Concrete cancer, poor maintenance and the vandalism of social discontent have had their way - down it will come.
But there is nothing intrinsically flawed with the idea of high-rise living. Sustainability, good maintenance, careful management and a sense of ownership can make things work.
If the lift works, towers are particularly suitable for the elderly - great views, peace and quiet, neighbours who can still remember the post-war devastation.
Towers also work for the young - they are convenient, give a good leg-up on the housing market, and, with good neighbours, great fun. There is plenty of time to have children and move into a predictable estate on the outside of town. In the meantime, one can enjoy life with one's head in the clouds.
There is now a new generation of high-rise
The tower of homes is making a refreshing comeback. New technology means faster, more reliable lifts, and acoustic improvements mean greater privacy.
New materials and structural engineering innovations produce a new architectural language for the tower. Although concrete is still an essential part of the buildings' structure, it is no longer a singular cladding material.
The new towers benefit from the introduction of colour and texture. The tower prejudice has all but gone - today's urban world is once again reaching for the sky.
An Australian hospital has launched an inquiry after staff treating a woman carrying twin boys accidentally terminated the wrong foetus.
Doctors had told the woman that one of her babies had a congenital heart defect that would require numerous operations, if he survived.
The woman chose to abort the 32-week foetus but staff injected the wrong twin.
The hospital in Melbourne described it as a "terrible tragedy".
"The Royal Women's Hospital can confirm a distressing clinical accident occurred on Tuesday," it said in a statement.
"We are conducting a full investigation and continue to offer the family and affected staff every support."
The woman went on to have an emergency caesarean to end the life of the sick foetus.
'Thorough investigation'
Victorian Health Minister David Davis said the hospital investigation would be overseen by an independent expert.
"I am very much determined to get to the bottom of what went wrong," he said.
State Premier Ted Baillieu echoed his sentiments, saying: "I don't think it's appropriate for anybody to draw any conclusions other than this is a horrible tragedy.
"We'll make sure that the investigation is as thorough as it can be."
In a brief statement, the family asked for privacy "at what has been a very difficult time for us".
Fellow researcher Karin Michels said: "The magnitude of the rise in urinary BPA we observed after just one serving of soup was unexpected and may be of concern among individuals who regularly consume foods from cans or drink several canned beverages daily.
"It may be advisable for manufacturers to consider eliminating BPA from can linings."
The UK's Food Standards Agency said: "Our current advice is that BPA from food contact materials does not represent a risk to consumers but the agency will be looking at this study, as it would at any new piece of work, to see if it has any implications for our advice to consumers."
Basic care for the elderly in their own homes in England is so bad it breaches human rights at times, an inquiry says.
The home care review by the Equality and Human Rights Commission highlighted cases of physical abuse, theft, neglect and disregard for privacy and dignity.
It said on many occasions support for tasks such as washing and dressing was "dehumanising" and left people "stripped of self-worth".
The findings have added weight to calls for a complete overhaul of the system.
Campaigners described the situation as "shameful", while councils, which are in charge of providing such services, said without urgent reform services would just get worse.
There are currently nearly 500,000 people who are getting council-funded support in their own homes.
The home care review said about half of people who had given evidence reported real satisfaction with care, but a number of common complaints were made by others. These included:
The physical abuse reported was most often in the form of rough handling or unnecessary physical force.
A 78-year-old woman who lives alone told the commission about her treatment.
She said: "Most of the girls [from the agency] were nasty. They were rough. Rather than say 'Sit in the chair', they'd push me back into the chair, that sort of thing, and I didn't like that.
"I couldn't do anything about it. I can't even walk and I think they know this, you see. They know you're vulnerable."
Older people not being given enough support to eat and drink, with some staff arguing health and safety restrictions prevented them preparing hot meals
Neglect because care workers stick rigidly to their tasks, such as a case when a woman was left stuck on the toilet because staff were too busy
Financial abuse, including money being systematically stolen over a period of time
Chronic disregard for privacy and dignity, such as leaving people unwashed and putting them to bed in the afternoon
Patronising behaviour, with cases highlighted including staff talking on mobile phones while they tended to clients
Physical abuse involving pushing and rough handling
Ann Reid says one of her husband's carers refused to help him go to the toilet, because he was reading the newspaper
In particular, it highlighted article eight, which guarantees respect for dignity and personal autonomy, article three, which covers the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, and article two, governing the right to life.
To rectify the situation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the law needed extending to clear up a potential loophole.
Councils are already covered by the Human Rights Act, but as they buy most home care services from the voluntary and private sector, it remains unclear how well protected the elderly are.
A number of people complained that services were inflexible with staff keeping rigidly to set tasks. Taken to the extreme, this can result in serious situations being ignored.
A council officer recounted a case where one woman's pleas for help were ignored by her carer.
"I had a lady who was on the toilet when the carer came. She shouted 'I'm stuck, I need some help'. The carer shouted up: 'Can't do that, but I've made you a butty and I'm going now.'"
The commission also called on councils to ensure they balanced quality of service with price when tendering for services.
But it made clear that part of the problem was a basic lack of compassion and common sense among staff, pointing out simple measures such as staff covering someone with a towel while washing them could make all the difference.
Age discrimination was also highlighted as a significant barrier as older people were getting less money towards their care than younger people with similar problems.
But the commission suggested the prospects for the future looked bleak as one in three councils had already cut back on home care spending while a further one in five were planning to.
'Simply unacceptable'
EHRC commissioner Baroness Sally Greengross, who led the report, said it was time home care provided by councils was encompassed by the Human Rights Act.She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Two messages came out loud and clear. This poor care mustn't continue.
"And one of the ways to stop it continuing is to close the loophole, which means that any care that's commissioned by a local authority or another public body should come under the Human Rights Act so people are protected from abuse."
Linda Stephens, whose mother suffered from dementia and had home care, and who also worked as a carer herself, told the BBC there had been a lack of understanding of people and their needs.
She said: "Although I gave them quite an in-depth idea of what care was needed for mum - a lot of it would have been prompting and support - but unfortunately because of time restraints on them they were task orientated."
One of the common complaints was a lack of help the elderly were given eating and drinking.
The report highlighted cases where people unable to feed themselves were given no help or where uneaten meals were left for days.
In one incident a carer watched as a 76-year-old cancer patient struggled from her lounge to her kitchen to microwave her meal because the worker argued they could not help because of health and safety.
The woman's daughter said: "It is hard to think of a reason or excuse big enough adequately to cover such a fundamental lack of care from one adult to another."
Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, described the findings as "shameful".
"It is simply unacceptable that care in people's own homes, where they can be at their most vulnerable, is often inadequate, disrespectful and lacking in dignity."
Ministers have already promised the whole social care system - including care homes as well as help at home - will be looked at, with initial plans expected to be published in the spring.
This comes after a recent government-commissioned review recommended costs - the system is means-tested - be capped, while the regulator has promised to toughen its inspections of home care providers.
But councils pointed out such promises have been being made for over a decade.
Councillor John Merry, of the Local Government Association, said: "These results are symptomatic of a social care system that is under-funded and in need of urgent reform. The longer ministers procrastinate, the more our population ages and the worse things will become."
Just exactly who are 'the rich'?
