>And I left my job. They were very nice about it, they were tentatively willing to try to make it work. But I just don't think I can do psychotherapy very well while I'm also a public figure, plus people were already calling them trying to get me fired and I didn't want to make them deal with more of that.

"Well crap now I'm a public figure because of this, I don't really have a choice if I want to do my job well in the future."

Using "forced" may be a little clumsy, but it's certainly directionally correct.

It's not directionally correct. It's not correct in any sense.

If he doesn't think he can do psychotherapy very while while he's a "public figure" (his name being in the paper a single time), why is he opening up his own practice?

I have already posted his own quotes in this comment chain, where he admits his case is weak and that anonymity is merely his preference.

>why is he opening up his own practice?

He is opening his practice only to patients that are comfortable with him and he is comfortable with. That's a different situation than working with who the hospital assigns him. Also he does say they were 'tentatively' willing to still keep him but it sounds like there was friction nonetheless.

I would submit there's a pretty big difference between his long term preference for pseudo-anonymity and the question of what to do, right now, with his patients. He made a decision to leave his practice and transfer the patients to someone else, and start his own where everyone is coming into the relationship eyes wide open. Given the circumstances, he certainly had a choice, yes. And given how he evaluated the costs and benefits for his patients and his career, he felt his only real choice was the latter. Like I said, "forced" is probably a clumsy adjective to use for something requiring a more nuanced explanation.