Robert Berley wrote:
>
> [1] Regarding the problem of clinical material on this LISTSERVE:
>
> Descriptions of clinical events appear everywhere in the psychoanalytic
> literature, and is open to be read by anyone who searches for it. While the
> Web is more easily accessed than professional journals, there is no
> "privilege" in either venue. The only real difference is that to get
> published, one must pass through a process that pretty much ensures the
> writer’s status as a professional, which is not the case on the LIST.
>
> If this forum is to be useful in certain specific ways to clinicians (and
> most of the postings I’ve seen suggest participants do want that particular
> kind of discussion), then the opportunity to write up various clinical
> episodes would be essential. I would propose, however, that participants
> agree to only write about cases which have terminated. If something has
> occurred or is occurring in a current case, it might be especially helpful to
> examine earlier situations in which another example of the process under
> scrutiny appears. Not only can one then write (with suitable alterations)
> about a closed case, but the search will likely clarify some of the relevant
> issues. In addition, we agree as readers  to hear the material as describing
> terminated treatments brought forth now to help illustrate a concern,
> question, or theoretical conundrum.
>
......

I don't see what problems are eliminated by the fact that a case has
been terminated, if the worry is that the patient might come upon a
discussion of his or her material.  What's lost, of course, is the
freshness of the case.

This whole discussion is a good one for raising cyber-dimensions of
familiar problems about when or whether one can discuss ones cases.  I'd
hope that one not try to derrive a list of "rules" from the discussion.
Ultimately, the clinician is going to have to use judgment about how
harm might come about from writing about a case.