On: Editors' note for the Analyst at work feature

Dear Sirs,

While I recognize the importance of advancing the prospect of more open reporting of analytic process material (Gabbard and Williams, 2005), I am concerned about the lack of accountability which is introduced in the offer of anonymity to the analyst author. I believe such an unsigned report may seriously limit its scientific merit while raising ethical questions as well.

There is surely a spectrum of views regarding the procedure for the protection of the patient's confidentiality in writing case reports. I believe, however, that any material that is reported, whether or not directly shared with the patient and no matter how disguised, ought to be able to be acknowledged to the patient should it come to her or his attention.

Similarly, I believe an analyst presenting her or his clinical work must be accountable to the community of colleagues for the ideas put forth. Anonymity absolves the analyst of this responsibility. As noted by Martin Peretz (2005) regarding the matter of news sources, ‘Anonymity is not a promise of veracity’. In our field, I would say, anonymity in reporting deprives us of the opportunity for candid and thereby meaningful exchange.

Yours sincerely,

25 May 2005