Most complaints against rural Saskatchewan doctors go unremarked upon in the pages of the United States's paper of record, the New York Times. But not the ones just recently filed with the provincial regulatory college against Moose Jaw emergency physician James Heilman.
According to the Times article, two psychologists have filed complaints against Dr Heilman because he added to Wikipedia the ten famous Rorschach inkblots and common responses and interpretations of those responses -- images and information which some think should have been kept secret from patients to preserve the test's viability. (It should be noted that the images are in the public domain, and Dr Heilman has done nothing illegal.)
It's a fascinating situation. Can the test really be rendered impotent by the publication of the images online? Is Dr Heilman's decision to expand public understanding unethical because of the consequences some psychologists allege it may have? Are those allegations reasonable? Is this Rorschach matter somehow distinguishable from, say, the publication of DSM diagnostic criteria, particularly the criteria that could conceivably garner patients prescriptions to powerful drugs?
None of these are easy questions to answer, but they may be important ones to address as patients increasingly consult the internet about medical questions, and other privileged professional information makes its way online.
For those who are interested, this is the Wikipedia page where the inkblots and information bout them appear. An entire page at Wikipedia is devoted to debating the inclusion of the images, and itself some interesting material to think about.