We examine the likely reception in the courtroom of the 'joint account' model of genetic confidentiality. We conclude that the model, as modified by Gilbar and others, is workable and reflects, better than more conventional legal approaches, both the biological and psychological realities and the obligations owed under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Doctors, particularly in aesthetic surgery, are increasingly under public and press scrutiny. This paper sets out how, and why, the press can influence the outcome of a professional investigation or the expression of anger by a disgruntled patient. Seven steps are set out which clinicians can follow to minimize the risk to their reputation.

The General Medical Council receives over 5000 complaints every year. 1 On 17 October 2005 a new procedure came into effect that will mean some complaints will now be referred to the local health service or primary care trust. 1 Scaling down the complaints procedure in this way exposes it to claims of unfairness and partiality that could weaken the public's faith in the way complaints are dealt with and undermine their trust in doctors generally. The General Medical Council has the ultimate power to restrict or remove a doctor's ability to practice. It is vital that this quasi-judicial authority is not only exercised properly but is seen to be exercised properly when careers, reputations and patient care are at stake. Most complaints received by the General Medical Council are not concerned with issues that may entail a doctor being struck off. 1 Accordingly, it believes many would be best dealt with at a local level because local health service trusts or primary care trusts can be better placed to examine the patient's complaint and identify any governance issues that may have arisen. 2 Would a local trust complaints officer really be more objective than an independent General Medical Council screener? The General Medical Council will now make an initial assessment of each complaint it receives and distinguish between those that are sufficiently serious to warrant further investigation itself and those that it can refer to the relevant local health service or primary care trust to deal with under their own complaints procedures. 1 The more serious complaints procedure will be referred to as stream one and the less serious procedure referred to as stream two. Guidelines are yet to be provided on what will differentiate the two streams. It is crucial that the distinguishing factors of each route are assimilated quickly and applied consistently between trusts. In some cases where the patient may have to have further contact with the doctor concerned, this might put both parties in a difficult position and deter the patient from making the complaint in the first place. The doctor involved will also be placed in an impossible position that may prejudice his or her ability to perform their job. Once the complaints officer of the relevant local health service trust or primary care trust has assessed the complaint they are able to refer it straight back to the

No abstract

The General Medical Council receives over 5000 complaints every year. 1 On 17 October 2005 a new procedure came into effect that will mean some complaints will now be referred to the local health service or primary care trust. 1 Scaling down the complaints procedure in this way exposes it to claims of unfairness and partiality that could weaken the public's faith in the way complaints are dealt with and undermine their trust in doctors generally. The General Medical Council has the ultimate power to restrict or remove a doctor's ability to practice. It is vital that this quasi-judicial authority is not only exercised properly but is seen to be exercised properly when careers, reputations and patient care are at stake. Most complaints received by the General Medical Council are not concerned with issues that may entail a doctor being struck off. 1 Accordingly, it believes many would be best dealt with at a local level because local health service trusts or primary care trusts can be better placed to examine the patient's complaint and identify any governance issues that may have arisen. 2 Would a local trust complaints officer really be more objective than an independent General Medical Council screener? The General Medical Council will now make an initial assessment of each complaint it receives and distinguish between those that are sufficiently serious to warrant further investigation itself and those that it can refer to the relevant local health service or primary care trust to deal with under their own complaints procedures. 1 The more serious complaints procedure will be referred to as stream one and the less serious procedure referred to as stream two. Guidelines are yet to be provided on what will differentiate the two streams. It is crucial that the distinguishing factors of each route are assimilated quickly and applied consistently between trusts. In some cases where the patient may have to have further contact with the doctor concerned, this might put both parties in a difficult position and deter the patient from making the complaint in the first place. The doctor involved will also be placed in an impossible position that may prejudice his or her ability to perform their job. Once the complaints officer of the relevant local health service trust or primary care trust has assessed the complaint they are able to refer it straight back to the