It is with profound regret, that once again the redtops have excelled themselves in relating an article to the poulace devoid of any, substance, or accuracy for the purposes of selling papers. Indeed, the alarmist nature of the 'reporting' is typical of the moral turpitude we've come to associate with the press. They have, however, introduced a small element of truth in the piece by stating that friends were summoned to evacuate the infant to hospital, though in actuality the baby was transported by ambulance, and indeed it was after a substantial delay. Factually, the piece, compared and contrasted with your account appears to be out of context. Indeed, it omits your clear observations that though there was a worrying rash, the signs and symptoms were not indicative of a serious event as related in the article, given the alert disposition of the infant, and other observations. A previous post regarding the heads of complaint open to you, should you wish to send the matter up for adjudication, is entirely correct, as there does appear to be a distortion of the facts. Given the fact that the event occured some years ago would indicate, that a responsible 'journalist' with a duty to test the veracity of the article, and give a balanced view, ought to have made some effort to contact you. This is clearly not the case. Ergo, I would agree that it is, at best lazy, and incompetent reporting, or at worst, a slur on the LAS and your professional ability. Should you elect to seek an adjudication based on the heads previously posted, your strict liability in relation to patient confidentiality must be strictly observed. I would urge you to consider carefully, that it is likely that were the adjudication to go in your favour, the remedy would be an obscure retraction hidden away in the advertisements. Never-the-less, it is out of context, inaccurate and damaging, and the basis of a valid complaint, as the real story is an increased demand on resources which has to be balanced within finite budget constraints.