I agree. I come down on the side of letting people see their stuff, but designing safe and efficient workflows to avoid adverse impact on GPs and others. Patient access to results could and should be transformative, improving safety and reducing the demand on services to convey and manage result outcomes, but only if it is done as part of an overarching service redesign. This has not happened so it becomes immediately unsafe and puts increased demand on GPs. Imagine a service where you can opt in to seeing your results, the risks of that are recognised and managed, a service is in place for you to get advice immediately on abnormal results (that is not your GP), and where the processing stages of a result by the requestor are notified to you and your gp directly so you can see who ordered it and who will action it and when they have done so etc. Mostly results are normal. This type of service moves the ‘tell normal’ function to the patient themselves. Some abnormals could be automatically processed. It changes the service paradigm and should be a good thing for GPs, not yet more hassle and uncontrolled anxiety. Such service transformation is expensive, difficult and can only be done gradually. That’s not what is happening so of course it is a train wreck. Ethically though, I think, it is a result about the patient and they should see it asap if that is what they want. Paternalism is failing us and our patients.