I was going to answer this question. Then I realized my "answer" was a paraphrase of some dialogue from one of the Law and Order tv shows.

Revel in my dubiousness.

Considering the guy is dead, it seems like less of a big deal to me. If he were alive, then yeah, that doesn't seem right.

It's not so much that anything terribly devastating was revealed -- I just thought that therapist confidentiality, short of credible threats to someone's safety, was supposed to be absolute. And the implied claim that it was all okay because the therapist's name was kept out of it struck me as bullshit.

The article says "because of rules" when it should have said "because the therapist doesn't want anyone to know she's unethical."

And the implied claim that it was all okay because the therapist's name was kept out of it struck me as bullshit.

This gets it exactly right.

It said "because of" the rules, because the rules exist -- note that it didn't say "in conformity to" the rules. The sentence in question is actually incredibly precise.

i agree with you, lb, that this is either a violation of the therapists' code or at least an undermining of the rationale behind it.

perhaps when the NYT originally contacted the therapist, they told her that they were not going to use Mr. Kauffman's name.

but to find out the real answer to your ethical question, we should clearly submit this to Randy Cohen.

Shorter therapist: "Mr. Kaufman was pitiful." If not unethical, very tacky.

I also enjoyed this line: "The company said it was saddened by Mr. Kauffman's death." Perhaps the company and the therapist should get together.

"Gather all of your patients in a room, and tell them that they all have something in common. Can you guess what?"

submit this to Randy Cohen

This is a good time to admit that every time someone brings up Randy Cohen, I think "Randy Newman." Realizing my mistake, I imagine Newman singing the words of one of Cohen's column. It's oddly pleasant in a way.

"we're columnists/
we're columnists/
we don't now our ass/
from a hole in the ground/
we're columnists/
we're columnists/
we're just:
keeping the ethicists down."

or now how to spell 'know', but that's a different issue.

The therapist broke the confidentiality rules and his mother made him a "public figure". It's kinda hard to tell who needs to go up against the wall. What the hell, it's early, I'm short on sleep, and low on coffee. Shoot 'em both. And Randy too.

12 doesn't go far enough!

"columnists from NYU /
went in dumb, come out dumb too /
hustlin' New York therapists with their anonymous news..."

perhaps when the NYT originally contacted the therapist, they told her that they were not going to use Mr. Kauffman's name

Given my understanding of the confidentiality rules, this makes no difference. The therapist ought not to be discussing Mr. Kauffman with anybody, be it a reporter, the mailman, or the therapist's mother, no matter what promises the other person makes not to spread the information or to use Mr. Kauffman's name.

... gettin' drunk every weekend at the Ava Lounge ..."

17 is what I was searching for, and could not find.

It should be possible, in theory, to re-write most of that song in this style.

I think the times has internal rules that reporters are supposed to give a reason why a source is anonymous.

I think the times has internal rules that reporters are supposed to give a reason why a source is anonymous.

And generally the explanation the reporter gives can best be parsed as "because the source is an unethical weasel".

Those are the rules inspired by Judith Miller, right?

The holder of the right to privacy, under California law (I know not applicable) is the now deceased. I do not think that his Estate stands in his stead. The rights are personal. It could be merely in artful speaking by the not so ethical therapist or bad writing by the "journalist". Anyway I think I recall in law school that such rules do not apply to the NYT.

It's not the NYT I'd hold accountable here, but the unethical therapist. I suppose Mr. Kauffman's rights do die with him, but it's still awful for the therapist to air confidential information / thoughts / diagnoses to the general public. This is why my mother refuses to go to a therapist (though she desperately needs to), because she's afraid of her own neuroses' being bandied about as conversation fodder in the small town where she lives.

If I died tomorrow, I'd not want my roommate blaring to the News and Observer: "Yeah, we found a big purple dildo in her underwear drawer, but the batteries were dead in her vibrator. I guess that's why she needed those anti-depressants." My mother's gonna read that shit, and she already needs a therapist.

The moral being: Throw away your dildos before you die. Also, kill your therapist.

Does your mom not like purple or something, Wrenae?

Confidentiality can be useful in some cases though:

Hussein appears to have fallen afoul of a new Iraqi push, encouraged by some U.S. advisers, to more closely monitor the flow of information about the country's violence, and strictly enforce regulations that bar all but authorized spokesmen from talking to media.

She's got a grape phobia, what can I say?

Besides, all of my mother's dildos are pink and moderately-sized. And shaped like snake hemipenes. I know this because her therapist told me.

I do what I want!

also worth keeping in mind that while Kauffman may be dead, eli lilly is not.
it's alive, and fighting a lot of suits.
sliming the victims is part of how a defendant fights back--'of course he killed himself--he was a loser! it wasn't our drug at all!'
so, it's not completely a dead issue here. the party that was injured by the breach may be dead, but another party is being aided by it.

Sounds like it's time for a blogger ethics panel.

I'm not dead.

30: "You're not foolin anyone you know."

Alternatively, "Oh, don't be such a baby."

Sounds like a HIPAA violation to me. You don't lose your HIPAA privacy rights just 'cause you're dead. And psychiatric notes are the holy-of-holies under the Privacy Rule.

This particular therapist is clearly wrong.

I believe, though, that confidentiality may be probated ultimately. Not sure how that works though.

I have heard of psychiatrists who I thought were very ethical people who broke confidentiality rules by agreeing to meet with the families of patients who had committed suicide. They were selective about what they told--nothing about sex lives--and aware that they were treading in dangerous waters, but they did it anyway.

It's illegal, but I'm not sure that their behavior is wrong.

Dear Mr. Ethics,

I am a Presbyterian minister with a part-time marriage-counseling operation on the side. I was counseling a very attractive young couple, especially the wife, and one thing led to another. Now people are saying I did something wrong, but I don't get it. She's very happy, I can assure you of that, and so am I, and what he doesn't know won't hurt him. You have to follow your heart, and anyway, he was the first one to mention divorce.

It's not like marriage counseling pays a living wage. I'm a great counselor, but PC criticisms from uptight people are about to drive me out of the business, and the world will be poorer for that.

[Based on a true story involving someone I know slightly].

[Based on a true story involving someone I know slightly].

You mean Kotsko, right?

No, Kotsko is still in training for that kind of work.

But I'm sure that he'll do very, very well once he gets his career underway.