Here's the gist of the complaints (see here for more details):
One of them, Andrea Kowaz of the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, complained that by including the inkblots on Wikipedia, Dr. Heilman was violating the test’s secrecy and that if he were a psychologist his behavior would be “viewed as serious misconduct.”I side with Dr. Heilman.
The other letter, from Laurene J. Wilson, a psychologist at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, echoed the concern about the test’s security but added that Dr. Heilman “shows disrespect to his professional colleagues in psychology and disparages them in the eyes of the public.”
Dr. Wilson said she had read interviews with Dr. Heilman in which he “refers to psychologists as undertaking practices akin to a magic show with smoke and mirrors.”
Dr. Kowar accuses Dr. Heilman of "violating the test's secrecy." But the test is just a series of inkblots and an interpretive system. Secrecy is a commitment psychologists make about the test and an aspiration they hold for it. The commitment is a piece of professional self-regulation and isn't binding on others. And a visit to Amazon will show that the secrecy cat is long since out of the bag. All the major texts on Rorschach interpretation are readily available. The idea that the images and the theories about how to interpret responses are secret is a naive fantasy, and the claim that a professional society's code of ethics applies to people outside of the profession is muddled thinking.
Dr. Wilson raises a more vexing question - what do professionals owe to each other in terms of public respect or disrespect? Putting aside the fact that psychology and medicine are different professions, professional etiquette has long demanded that physicians speak of each other respectfully in public. At best this expectation avoids undermining patient respect for doctors who deserve to be respected. At worst it protects colleagues from justified criticism and prevents action to protect patients from harm.
I don't agree that competent psychologists are conducting "practices akin to a magic show with smoke and mirrors" any more than I see emergency room doctors as butchers, even though some psychologists are presumably smoke and mirror charlatans and some ER doctors are probably dangerous butchers. If Dr. Heilman spoke this way and I were part of the Saskatchewan Medical Society I would point out that public trust is crucial for the health professions. He should be free to make reasoned and evidence-based critiques of medical (including psychological) practices, but name calling is demeaning to him as well as to those the names are aimed at. Respectful debate can improve practice and will enhance public trust that the health professions are doing their best to get things right. Name calling does nothing for quality and makes professionals look like children squabbling in a sandbox.
This, however, does not rise to the level of being an ethical violation. I'll be surprised if the Saskatchewan Medical Society concludes otherwise. The Society usually responds within 60 days, so stay tuned!