He didn't say releasing his name would be detrimental to those he treats. If there was a serious medical ethical concern here about just his full name he would never have used his real first names to begin with - no medical professional would take such a risk. I'm sure he takes the utmost care with whatever obligations he has as a medical practitioner.
I think it’s plausible that if I became a national news figure under my real name, my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun nuts – wouldn’t be able to engage with me in a normal therapeutic way. I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly the "possibly detrimental for those he treats" I was referring to. I'm not sure why you sat he didn't state that, unless you're referring to how you dropped the "possibly" from my statement, but that would make your reply a non-sequitur, so I don't think that makes sense either.
> If there was a serious medical ethical concern here about just his full name he would never have used his real first names to begin with - no medical professional would take such a risk.
Not everyone publishes their middle name. Without that middle name being fairly public and a little foreknowledge about that being likely what was done, there's little chance of finding the correct person.
Hell, my first name is a very rare spelling, and middle name is common, probably about as common as his. You won't find a single thing about me searching for that combo, because I've never included my middle name in anything that would be published online.
There's also the possibility he doesn't go by his first name. He could go my his middle name (Alex) and we that would also confound most searching. He didn't even specifically say whether the first and middle name were in the correct order, so you can't really assume anything from that, since they are both very common first names and he was trying to maintain some anonymity.
As a simple example, his full name could be Scott Alexander Papageorgio, and I doubt you would get very far finding what you thought were useful results from any variations of Scott and Alexander.
D'oh, you're right, I got sidetracked reading the Sci Am article he linked and then probably forgot to go back and read the rest of his thing after skimming. But to me, that makes his argument weaker. Either he was naive about this obvious and ostensibly grave risk to his patients, which seems at a minimum reckless. Or he assessed the risk and considered it acceptable, which seems both more charitable and plausible.
As to the name, I don't think we really need a convoluted hypothetical - it's not his first brush with exposure and people have found his full name before. He was lightly pseudonymous and aware of it.
