The purpose of this paper is to stimulate debate about the appropriate standard of proof to use in GMC hearings. The GMC currently uses a criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). However, this is a matter of custom and practice and is not specified. Recently there have been calls for the GMC to consider introd ucing a civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to provide a better balance between public protection and fairness for the accused doctor. This paper looks at the legal debates around this issue and considers arguments about: the gravity of the offence and the severity of the potential sanction; GMC proceedings as a whole; and the wider regulatory system.