What if you do complain and it is ineffectual? Here's a piece I read a while back on this case, which is quite enlightening (*yes, it's in the Guardian). "The judgment starts off well, by dismissing the complaints made against Haywood by the Royal Sussex Hospital. The trust had complained that Haywood had broken their own rules by going public, instead of complaining internally. The panel was scathing about this. Haywood had in fact reported her concerns to a ward manager. In any case, her actions were justified because so many relatives and staff had complained, with no apparent effect. In a rather fine paragraph the panel writes that what Haywood did was defensible because "the concerns were of an exceptionally serious nature. The failure to deliver basic nursing care to these patients, many of whom were in the last stages of their lives, rendered many of their lives miserable. It was so serious because it was so fundamental. There was a failure to meet basic human needs." The judgment goes on to make clear that it was only the broadcast that forced radical reform. Until then, internal complaints had produced a sluggish and "not very impressive" response. So far, so good. But then the judgment takes a bewildering turn. Before the film went out, Panorama obtained the retrospective permission of every patient - or their relative - whose cases were featured. One elderly man is not featured, but is glimpsed in the background in a handful of shots. Suddenly the panel decrees that the fact that he is on a ward is confidential information, and that therefore Haywood has contravened the nursing code by betraying patient confidentiality. Moreover, she cannot be excused for it because "she should not have gone public until she had explored and exhausted, with management and senior management ... all other avenues of addressing the inadequacies on the ward." The result? She may not work as a nurse again. What? What? Only a few paragraphs earlier, Haywood is fully justified in forcing change. Now an anodyne background shot of a man in pyjamas means she must lose her livelihood. I read the nursing code. There is nothing in it to back up the panel's preconditions on whistleblowing. They seem to have been plucked out of the air. But the sense of official relief at a reason to ban her rises off the page."