Surely there is a difference between a professional journal with standards and peer review, and a public blog with a comments section that frequently features Steven Pinker and discussions about racial effects on IQ.
Sorry, I got my online Steves confused and meant Steve Sailer, not Pinker. For one, there aren't any professional journals for which Steve Sailer's ideas about race, IQ or the Holocaust would meet their standards. Second, doctors often get consent for case studies on their patients, and only give pertinent details like sex, age, or complicating medical conditions if absolutely necessary. Case studies are meant for professionals to peruse in an effort to better advance the field they practice in.
A personal blog where a psychiatrist divulges his patients' sexualities and relationship issues to pontificate about polyamorism with his laymen blog readers, including Steve Sailer, is not the same thing as a case study in a professional journal.
I agree that they are not the same. But I don't really understand why it is different in a way that changes its moral character. Steve Sailer can read psychiatry journals if he wants to. As long as the stories are well anonymized, I don't really see much difference.