我们希望在出版案例历史中的同意和机密方面赞扬论坛的建议。
我们的期刊每年出版三次，流通相对较小，但也参加了一些研究生医学图书馆，因此可能会提供更广泛的受众。
我们的订阅者是使用在各种环境中呈现性困难的患者的医生。培训是经验主义，通过介绍具有指定领导者的研讨会群体的案件。案例在我们的会议和期刊文章中介绍还提供学习机会和同行评审。
As well as addressing (in an ordinary medical way) the physical aspects of the sexual problem presented, our work explicitly uses the study of the doctor–patient relationship to shed light on the presenting difficulties. In other words, the doctor–patient relationship is one of our key treatment ‘tools’ allowing connections to be made between the body and the mind in relation to the sexual problem.
These consultations almost always include intimate and sensitive information. Therefore, it had previously been felt that asking for permission to present cases would disrupt the very doctor–patient relationship on which our work depends. As a result, we have tended instead to seek to ensure anonymity by disguising personal details in presentations at meetings and in the journal rather than asking for consent from the patient.
We recognise that this practice is out of line with that recommended by the BMA and the GMC.
我们的主要关注点涉及限制适当案例材料的可能性，以便在演讲中和期刊上的教学目的，如果医生认为无法遵守要求患者同意的要求。这会严重干扰培训。
我们宁愿继续使用我们的目前的指导，而不是强制性的同意。实际上，我们想建议，在医生满足信息可以匿名的情况下，他/她不需要试图获得同意。
我们考虑在可能读到它的患者中添加了一个陈述，并认识或相信他们认识到自己或他们的故事。我们的创始人之一在一本书的前言中解决了这个问题，要求患者接受那个没有人，而是自己能够认识到他们并理解，虽然每个都是独一无二的，但有很多像他们一样分享相似之处问题;他们并不孤单。
我们将感谢您对以下几点的建议：
1）通过改变案例历史的元素 - 例如，姓名，占领，家庭细节，外观，地理位置等，以及继续避免绝对要求，以避免绝对要求获得同意耐心？作为培训机构，我们可以鉴于需要使用案例材料进一步培训旨在为后代的医生进行进一步的培训？
2）由律师提出的是我们可能会解释GMC指导和NHS实践代码的律师，以意味着不需要同意，在医生满足他或她可以匿名的情况下不需要同意要使用的数据（记住症状可能是标识符）。
3）如果您觉得我们确实需要改变我们的实践并要求作者从他们希望展示的案例历史的患者中获得同意;对如何实现这一目标是非常有帮助的。
所有人都承认这是一个困难的局面。这个问题已经在论坛之前多次来了，特别是在儿童保护程序的情况下。这些案件在英国和公共利益辩护中几乎不可能发布（在知道信息时，公共卫生利益大于机密性的要求）似乎并不持有。
The Forum warned that if enough information is available in the published report that a good investigative journalist can identify the patient, then the editor is in breach of the Data Protection Act. The Forum also warned that the editor, if on the UK medical register, could be in breach of the General Medical Council (GMC) regulations and was advised to consult the GMC’s documents Good Medical Practice and Patient Confidentiality and Consent.
该论坛还建议联系GMC咨询和接近DPA的信息专员。论坛指出，即使制作教育和训练传单也可能是有争议的，应该寻求同意，并加以患者应接受那个没有人，而是能够认识到他们，并且患者需要理解的作用，虽然每个都是独一无二的，有很多像他们共享类似问题的人。PLOS和BMJ对这些问题进行了政策，建议编辑可能能够适应这些问题。
While some advised seeking consent or publishing vignettes of anonymised cases, it is almost impossible to fully anonymise case studies and often such heavily anonymised cases can be educationally useless.
As recommended, we have spoken to the Information Commissioner for the DPA. He advised us that anonymised information could be published, and said that if the patient is not 100% sure that he/she is being described, then this is anonymised information. He said that it would nevertheless be best to ask for consent to publish a case history in its anonymised form.
We filled out the questionnaire from the GMC consultation on their new draft guidance on confidentiality. We have noted that the GMC proposes to change the recommendation that consent is obtained whether or not you think the patient can be identified, to recommending that consent is obtained if the information cannot be anonymised. The glossary now adds the word “reasonably” when discussing identification of information.
Pending the outcome of the GMC Consultation, it is likely that we will change our Guidelines to contributors to recommend that consent is obtained prior to publication of case reports in our journal, even when these have been anonymised. In situations where it is not possible to obtain consent, authors would be asked to confirm that, in their opinion, there is adequate anonymisation of the patient’s details; we have also produced a form for this purpose.
我们提出这些问题我们组织的成员anisation at a meeting in November 2008. We explained the background and provided a sample consent form for their use, together with our plans to provide sample patient letters to request consent, clinic information leaflets and suggestions on how to ensure anonymisation. We found that most were in agreement with our suggestions.