One purpose of The N&O's "Mental Disorder" series was to put a face on problems surrounding the failed effort to reform North Carolina's mental health system. Some readers said the paper was too successful in that respect.

A story Tuesday highlighted the treatment of a 14-year-old Chatham County youngster who receives help from a community support agency based in Durham. The story identified the youth by name and said he was depressed, he was repeating seventh grade, his parents were living apart and his mother was ill.

The story was accompanied by a large picture of the student (whom we won't name here), his eyes outlined with black eye shadow in Goth fashion.

The question came up in a media ethics class at Duke on Tuesday. Why, a student asked, would the newspaper identify so publicly a minor who is mentally ill? Another reader, a nurse, thought the depiction would subject the boy and his family to ridicule or judgment by peers.

Newspeople here defended the article and picture as important to telling the story about the failed state mental health program. The series that day focused on community services that were wasting money and providing dubious benefit to patients. But the story about the youth, a sidebar, illustrated how the program could be successful.

"If we wanted to show community service in action, I think it added value to show real people," said Lynn Bonner, the reporter. Juli Leonard, the photographer, said the boy and his parents had given their permission to be in the story and picture and understood the context -- that it was part of a series on mental health.

"Our overall policy at The News & Observer is to identify people represented in photos unless they make a special request otherwise," Leonard wrote in an e-mail to a reader. "At that point, editors make a decision whether to run the photo without the full information or to withhold the photo from publication. In this case, it was never a question with the family or caseworker, so we were comfortable with the choice. I believe that [the youth's] story is valuable because it gave a balanced view of how community support can work through the right organization."

The interview and picture with the family were arranged through Ryan Ort, the community service counselor who works with the youth. Ort said that he obtained written consent forms from the boy and his father and that he informed them fully about the nature of the article. "They went into this with full knowledge," he said. "They were in complete control in terms of what they wanted to do," and, he said, could withdraw their consent at any time, even after the interview was finished.

Ort said he thought the experience was therapeutic for the boy, in that it enabled him to deal openly with his issues. "There's a hope that he could have benefit for other people," he said. "I think there's a cathartic benefit to it."

I talked to the boy's father afterward. He said his son had raised a concern about what people might think about him from reading the story, but the father was satisfied with the coverage and thought it could benefit his son. He said they had received no adverse reaction. I did not reach the son.

Legally, a minor may not enter into a consent contract, but his parent can do so for him.

Even though the boy and his parents gave their consent, I wondered whether a 14-year-old fully understands what he is consenting to. So did Kelly McBride, ethics specialist with the Poynter Institute, a journalism education and training center in St. Petersburg, Fla. "If it were a 17-year-old kid, I would have no qualms," she said. "A lot happens between 14 and 17. I do believe children can make a decision at age 14 that they may regret at age 17."

Important issues to her, McBride said, are whether a child and family are fully aware of how they may be portrayed in the story and of possible consequences. Balancing possible harm to the subject, she said, is the harm to the public of withholding a story that could have important societal benefit -- in this case, improving mental health services. "I'm more worried when editors simply say no" to publishing a sensitive story, she said. "The harm then is you let the audience down."

Here are my feelings: I think the paper was responsible in fully informing the subjects about the story and obtaining their consent. As McBride observed, The N&O achieved a "critical mass" of informed consent by having the willing participation of the boy, his parents and the counselor.

The boy's story enhanced the mental health series and gave a human dimension to a complex public policy investigation sometimes heavy with budget numbers and bureaucratic jargon. (Other mental health patients were identified in the series, but they were adults.)

So, the paper did its due diligence. One nagging concern: Bonner said there was not much internal discussion of possible harm to the boy, even with his consent. I wish there had been. The staff may well have come to the same conclusion -- to publish -- but with more confidence that indeed the benefits to the community outweighed potential harm to an individual.