Ethics resolved: challenge

It's been a couple of weeks, during which time I had a much needed vacation, and was able to resolve the ethics dilemma I mentioned in my last post. I am relieved to report that I will be able to continue posting cases. It's really quite simple: the cases need to be unrecognizable to the people involved and not just to everyone else. So what is required is a bit of fictionalization. The idea is to keep the important details that make each case interesting and potentially useful to my readers, and to fib on the ones that are unnecessary but unique enough to allow someone to recognize themselves. I have added a bit about this under Author's note:

Important: While based on real consultations, the cases posted in this blog have been mashed up, fictionalized, posted out of sequence, and otherwise tinkered with in order to maintain the privacy and comfort of the parties involved.

With this in mind, over the next few weeks I will be editing and reposting the cases from before, and adding new ones as I go. This makes me think about a recent interesting post of David Rothman's in which he discusses the problem of versioning in blog posts. It occurs to me that if I chose not to be transparent about this process, there would be no way (that I know of) for anyone to know for sure that anything had changed. I have chosen transparency for the same reason I decided to create this blog in the first place, which is to share the challenges I encounter in the course of implementing this new service with others, and, selfishly, to allow myself a space in which explore my experiences and thoughts. But I also feel that in these cases it's a good thing that the new version overwrites the old.

Thank you for your patience!