The family history is a traditional section of the clinical record. Data on family members in the clinical record may be anonymous but yet these may be easily identifiable; therefore, exposing the relatives of the patient to the fact that a written record is produced, mentioning them, without their consent. This is in direct contradiction with European data protection and other regulations and in contradiction with a reasonable ethical perspective. For the purpose of obtaining an image of the present state of affairs, we used as a convenience sample, the series of Case Records published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine (January to December). From a total number of 40 reports, identifiable relatives were present in 30. The number of identifiable relatives varied between none and 6. It is not the right of each individual to disclose sensitive clinical information regarding other persons, without consent from these latter. Family history should no longer include identifiable relatives, unless consent is obtained from each identifiable person. The authors offer the following guidelines on this topic: (1) Do not mention any identifiable relative of the patient in the medical history without consent from the said relative; (2) Do not mention in the family history clinical conditions seemingly unrelated to the present clinical situation; (3) Do not mention in the family history clinical conditions that the patient does not (him/) herself have and that may be seen as social stigmata; (4) Consult the institutional Ethics committee in case of reasonable doubt.

do Minho 1 , as nossas reflexões centraram-se em duas questões com bastante premência atual e cuja resposta afigura deter alguma complexidade:* Professor na Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho.1 O presente texto corresponde, no essencial, à apresentação oral feita no Workshop "Democracia e Comunicação Social", realizado por via remota em março de 2021 e organizado pela Linha de investigação Globalização,

One cannot question the scientific evidence of the deterioration of the planet’s environmental quality and the global climate emergency. The apparent growth of denialism in the climate debate does not bring anything positive. The European Green Deal (“EGD”) appeared as a consolidated strategy to fight climate change, but the world is not the same as it was in December 2019. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, there were doubts about the viability of such a powerful political and financial investment. As we try to deal with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and guide our economies to recovery, risks of diversion or misuse of these environmental funds seemed possible. Fortunately, environmental common sense seems to have prevailed. In an unforeseen but potentially happy marriage, the Recovery Plan for Europe and the EGD were united in their purposes and in their concrete action. The European Climate Law (“ECL”) is the first binding legal instrument born of the EGD. With a non-mishap-free preparation process, the final version provokes contradictory feelings. First, the perception that one could have gone further is inescapable. On the other hand, what is already acquired is relevant and Europe is unlikely to go back on this essential matter. There are innovations in the ECL that significantly altered the Commission’s original proposal, introducing new elements. But while some of these changes appear to have been forced by the new circumstances, others may be proof that Member States do not have the same predisposition to deal with the objectives of the EGD and the fight against climate change. The safest way to contradict this inclination is to strengthen the ECL as a key tool in the implementation of the European Union’s environmental and policy strategy.