Search

This is a personal story regarding one woman's experience of serving as a case study protagonist and later having a psychologist uncover her identity and retell her life story in the name of scientific investigative journalism. As a participant in a psychological case report, I believed that my confidentiality would be protected. Unfortunately, this case study participant found herself in the middle of the Memory Wars, and that turned out to be the catalyst for an unwanted inquiry into my life. A well-known memory researcher hired a private investigator to find me, gained access to a great deal of private information about me, and published this in detail without my permission. I discuss in this article how these actions affected my life in some very serious ways. I raise several issues about the meaning of my experience for further case study authors and the clients whose lives they present, as well as questions about the duties of psychologists to the subjects of their research and inquiry., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

This commentary addresses the emotionally powerful account of Nicole Taus Kluemper from the perspective of a psychologist familiar with the administrative operation of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the ethics of the profession. The application of the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct to the case is discussed, and alternative methods of response that researchers who have concerns about case studies might use are offered. The author concludes that existing ethical principles-the aspirational standards in particular-do bear upon the matter in question. However, the enforceable code of conduct is not sufficiently clear about obligations to those whom psychologists publicly discuss when the psychologist does not have a specific duty of care to an individual., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Historically, clinical case reports have played an essential role in the professional communication of medical and psychiatric knowledge. Case reports continue to play important roles in the initial identification of new syndromes or unusual variants of established conditions. Case reports and case series also serve to alert clinicians to preliminary evidence of the efficacy of novel treatments or adaptations to new populations. The Jane Doe Case provides a seminal example of the ethical/medico-legal dilemma arising from a patient's right to confidentiality versus the principle of independent review/replication as a necessary requirement for scientific credibility. As a result of being the subject of dueling case reports concerning the validity of her delayed recall of childhood sexual abuse, Jane Doe's identity was revealed. Consequently, she suffered significant emotional distress, bankruptcy, and the end of her career as a naval officer and aviator. Current medical journal guidelines call for protection of confidentiality of the patient's identity; yet, scientific credibility requires the possibility of an independent outside review if there are legitimate reasons to question facts or claims advanced in a case report. A potential solution is proposed as a starting point for resolving the dilemma posed for case study subjects and authors by the conflicting requirements of patient confidentiality and, if warranted, the possibility of an independent scientific review., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

There are so many errors among those facts that can be checked in the Loftus and Guyer articles under review that they cast doubt on the accuracy of the alleged facts in these articles that cannot be easily checked. Loftus's and Guyer's two articles, published in a newsstand magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal, show a pattern of inaccuracy that casts doubt on their claims to have conducted a skeptical, objective inquiry. Some, but not all of these errors, were corrected in a 2009 article Geis and Loftus published in a peer-reviewed journal, although Loftus does not acknowledge in that article her earlier inaccuracies. This article corrects the record about the conclusions drawn in the Corwin and Olafson article published in 1997 and clarifies the history about Corwin's involvement in the Taus case., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

This article is a discussion of the articles by Nicole Taus Kluemper, Erna Olafson, Frank Putnam, Laura Brown, Ross Cheit, and Gerald Koocher. The papers center on the issues raised by a decision by two psychologists to break the confidentiality of a case study published by David Corwin and Erna Olafson to gather information to support an alternative theoretical view of the case. The article reviews best understandings of the justifications proposed by the psychologists, who saw themselves as investigative reporters, discusses the papers that have been submitted, and proposes enhanced ethical guidelines and increased professional discussion of these issues., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

This article explores the risks to authors and their clients of creating psychological literature based on case studies. The author considers how the events that occurred in Nicole Taus's case might have affected those clients with whom she wrote case studies. Finally, the author analyzes the potential losses to the field should other participants in case studies be at risk of the kind of intrusive invasion of privacy experienced by Taus and calls for the development of ethical principles for psychological science., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Loftus and Guyer have been criticized for the methods they employed in investigating an anonymous case study published by Corwin and Olafson. This article examines the ethical dimensions of their investigation. Loftus and Guyer have offered three defenses for their actions. All three of those defenses lack merit. Their investigation did not constitute oral history because it failed to comport with the basic requirements of that practice. Their investigation did not constitute ethical journalism because of the unjustified use of anonymous sources and the clear violation of basic fairness. Their investigation did not constitute justified medical research because of a failure to analyze or weigh the harms against the benefits. Their methods also violated ethical principles for psychologists, including the rule against activities that could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity. This case demonstrates that there is no ethical way to investigate a clinical case, without the patient's approval, that is both comprehensive enough to provide strong scholarship and yet respectful enough of privacy and medical confidentiality to honor important professional norms., (© The Author(s) 2014.)