Psychiatrists warned to 'stop analysing Trump' because they risk breaching their own code of ethics

[MadDAsHell]

Source: The Independent

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has issued a warning to its members to stop psychoanalysing Donald Trump because it breeches the organisation's strict code of ethics.

A great deal of armchair psychology has been written to explain Mr Trumps behaviour, with some commentators confidently claiming he is a psychopath or a sociopath terms which are often misunderstood and bandied about too casually, according to some practitioners.

Some professionals have declared the President is suffering from a personality disorder with many citing narcissistic personality disorder as one they believe afflicts him.

Following his recent press conferences, psychiatrists as well as media commentators have increasingly declared something is not quite right with Mr Trumps psyche, but the APA says this increasingly common trend by psychiatrists to diagnose those they havent treated must end.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-psychiatric-association-stop-analysing-donald-trump-warning-a7588751.html?amp

---

Interesting read. I'm not a clinician, but as a loved one of someone with severe mental illness, I agree that it's disturbing how many clinical professionals are willing to diagnose people (politicians, celebrities, etc.) that they've never treated or even met, all to get a little attention or make a political point. It's a sickening abuse of power, and an incredible disservice to those suffering from actual diagnosed mental illnesses.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. In the immortal words of Lou Grant:

Wanna call a cop?

[narnian60]

5. Hee hee.

[LiberalFighter]

9. ooo yes! Let them.

[Hortensis]

36. Their so-called version of "ethics" should be actionable.

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

If they spent 45 minutes interviewing a stranger, doing a "mental status exam" which consists of asking questions and observing and writing down the responses, reviewed whatever paperwork came with him, or did not, then dictated a report, they could then make an "ethical" diagnosis and issue a bill for it.

If the diagnosis warranted hospitalization, they could treat him in the hospital until the insurance coverage or government allowance ran dry, then "ethically" declare him better and "ethically" discharge him to the streets knowing any of the often very limited improvement will be temporary. Again. And then repeat it all again when/if money to pay became available again.

Otoh, if they have 40 years of video and audio of the behaviors of this same person to personally watch, hundreds of first-person witnesses to interview themselves, 40 years of court records documenting his behaviors to review, decades of interviews with and biographies written about this person to review, some by people who spent months with him, they could not ethically make even a partial, provisional diagnosis.

Bull shit. This behavior is extremely unethical. And it's habitual. We all know how difficult schizophrenia can be to treat successfully; well, personality disorders can be just as or even more recalcitrant. Intense behavior modification has the most effect--but typically not for long. Yet this expert on "ethics" and others like him have been making handsome livings from these people's problems for decades.

That's all without even addressing what duty they might have to the people of a nation and the world. If not them, who?

[Roy Rolling]

2. Credibility

It's not about the authority to "call the cops" on doctors, it is about the ethics of a trusted member of a profession making a professional diagnosis on a patient who they have never met.

A psychiatrist who makes such a comment is a quack.

[KittyWampus]

3. If you've seen enough cases of people who exhibit certain behavior, it's not being a "quack"

to discuss someone who exhibits such behavior.

[MadDAsHell]

16. Publically? Yes, that is being a quack. And frankly, a shitty professional (and human being). nt

[LanternWaste]

28. Do quality human beings call other humans shitty

Do quality human beings call other humans shitty, or is that also reserved only to shitty humans as well...?




Your allegations of righteous concern are consistent, if nothing else.

[WinkyDink]

33. Que lastima!

[moda253]

4. As they said on Stephanie Miller today

If a man constantly pisses himself in front of you, do you think he might be incontinent?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Bingo. I have a very good friend who is a PHD Clinical Psychologist and Professor.

He essentially made the same argument.

The idea that someone who, for 30 years, sees people with these disorders should shut up when they see it in a public official is ludicrous.

Trump is the most "public" person on the planet. IMO, Doctors should be afforded very wide latitude to discuss his OBVIOUS abnormal behavior. Come on, they're not discussing the cashier at the local Walmart.

[Kimchijeon]

31. Indeed

We all can see his behavior... issuing a "diagnosis" as a physician would be incorrect, but anyone can see he's showing signs of x y or z.

[PoliticAverse]

6. They're worried their field can have even less credibility? n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Once a profession's genie is out of the bottle

you can't recork it no matter how you try to stifle it

Economists were high priests before everyone saw the political agenda behind their
various theories and ideologies, and the Federal Reserve Chairmen were exalted
money theologians pre-Volcker days, with an honorable mention to later
episodes of "irrational exuberance"

Medical doctors practiced bleedings and leeches before science progressed

Priests could condemn, Popes could excommunicate back when the fear of God
was in everyone. People procreated for the Pope!

Psychological information and tools are widely available. No amount of suppression
will prevent the lay public from trying to apply them. If the professionals cannot
or will not go along, they should get out of the way! It's not a closed profession
anymore, and the various orientations clash to this day: Jung v. Freud v. Maslow, etc.

For all the good psychology does, for all the progress at human understanding, it is
still subject to interpretation, and elitism when expert witnesses and analysts clash.

For an in-depth look at alleged abuse, control, exploitation of the public and patients
by the psychanalytical profession, be sure to read "Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of
a Psychoanalyst" by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. The book helped me see that I didn't want
to be a counselor, or a psychologist.

** #fakenews - Yeah, with that middle name, he might be from the Middle East, or not have a
birth certificate! Horrors! Better call the Thought Police!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Psychiatrists. Not psychologists; psychiatrists.

And it is a closed profession: no MD, no psychiatrist.*

* I'm pretty sure that an MD is the required degree; i.e., a DO won't do.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Thank you

indeed for that correction, of course the title said 'psychiatrist', how careless of me.


I aim to be more fastidious, but no matter how hard I try .... I sure never wanted
to be a psychiatrist.

[exboyfil]

27. DOs can have residency in pretty much every

specialty like MDs. There is even an organization for Psychiatry.

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/development/aoa-board-certification/Pages/neurology-psychiatry-certification.aspx

[mahatmakanejeeves]

35. I was not sure of that. Thank for the correction. NT

[Zoider]

37. Well, psychiatric *therapy* isn't much beyond leeching

as in "Hey, we don't know what else to do, and sometimes it seems to work." It's a totally unscientific field, IMO, driven by personal opinions, hunches and biases - but even therapists admit there isn't much they can do with narcissists.

[luvMIdog]

8. it's just profiling like the FBI does for serial killers

They usually make up a profile when they are trying to hunt down serial killers without having met them or had any therapy sessions. Same thing in my opinion. Trump is a tantrum throwing serial liar and of course people are going to wonder why and form opinions

[LiberalFighter]

10. There you go. Call it a psych profile.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Use code: Patient Orange.

[Cosmocat]

11. I agree with this

It just is bad practice to do any kind of psychological analysis from long range like this first off.

Second, the psychological analysis is not helpful at all, it is another distraction for a person who breathes distractions like oxygen. In fact NEEDS these kinds of distractions to make his cons work.

Third, it by extension excuses his behavior as some out of his control condition.

He is a dolt and has a never ending array of blatantly apparent psychosis, but end of the day he is predator and should be viewed and treated simply as such.

[dchill]

12. Everyone should adhere to their "strict code of ethics..."

Except Trump. Oh. And the Republican Party. As long as we do that, they'll keep winning.

[MadDAsHell]

15. It has nothing to do with "winning." How about respect for actual diagnosed patients?

How about putting the dignity of persons with mental illness over your (i.e. anyone's) political prerogative?

Giving the impression you can accurately diagnose a mental illness from a TV clip casts doubt on real diagnoses.

[LanternWaste]

18. Precisely how does public diagnosis of A deny the dignity of private diagnosis B?

Precisely how does public diagnosis of A objectively deny the dignity of private diagnosis B?

Or is that merely a convenient, though fallacious conjunction to more effectively sound righteous?

And can we read your same consistent and allegedly indignant ranting against the retired diplomats and some of Putin's staff doing precisely the same thing, or does that not validate your narrative?

[dchill]

22. Some diagnoses don't even require a degree.

I don't think I'm being the least bit insensitive to diagnosed mental illness. Some things are obvious in this life, and need no professional opinion to make them real. Donald Trump's life is a diagnosis. You can't deny it.

[Nitram]

17. In general I would agree that psychologically analyzing a person based on video clips is

neither valid nor professional. Fox regularly did it to Obama. In Trump's case I'd make an exception and encourage the us of a preamble such as, "If I saw someone act like this, and heard them say things like this, I'd wonder if they might be suffering from [insert diagnosis]. Just sayin'."

[treestar]

21. Could they make an exception

for someone whose behavior is so public? It would seem like there could be enough behavior observed to make a determination like narcissistic personality disorder.

[murielm99]

23. I understand why they are saying this.

It is not professional.

I visited my brother's psychiatrist for one of his sessions, years ago. We talked about our parents. The psychiatrist was perfectly willing to call my dad an enabler. I asked about my mother. After hedging, telling us that she was not diagnosing, and telling us what she would have to do to come up with a diagnosis, she told us, cautiously, that our mother was probably a narcissist.

I do understand them trying to remain professional.

Remember Terry Schiavo? Is that the right name of the comatose woman in Florida? We hated it when doctors tried to diagnose her from a distance, for political purposes.

We know trump is dangerously unstable. We need to do something, but they have a right to protect their profession.

[treestar]

26. True

Reminds me of my uncle going to a psychiatrist and his brothers and sisters claiming the psychiatrist should have talked to them too, as they thought the patient was exaggerating or imagining things. Like the patient alone is not enough and you have to investigate the opinions of the family.

[mnhtnbb]

24. Many, many psychiatrists do not belong to the APA

and thus are not bound by the APA's code of ethics.

Notice the language: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has issued a warning to its members


So if a psychiatrist is NOT a member of the APA, they are not bound by the APA's warning.

The APA is pretty heavily in bed with the pharmaceutical industry and has been for years.

On the other hand, it's a very well established protocol for psychoanalysts (who don't have to be psychiatrists and not every psychiatrist is a psychoanalyst)
to use psychoanalytic methods to look at people in leadership positions and comment on how they got to be who they are or describe their behaviors in psychoanalytic terms.

Justin Frank, MD, the psychoanalyst who wrote Bush on the Couch and Obama on the Couch is currently at work on Trump on the Couch.

You can watch an interview with him by Thom Hartmann that was done last December. http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/trump-couch-wdr-justin-frank-md

Disclaimer: my husband is a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst with 40 some years of practice under his belt. He does not belong to the American Psychiatric Association.

[not fooled]

32. APA is probably worried

that dump will come after them...yank funding for something, etc. etc. etc.

[mnhtnbb]

34. Follow the $$ is always a good bet. The APA is connected big time to Big Pharma

and you know that Big Pharma is salivating over Trump and Republican control of Congress.

[kwassa]

25. Narcissists don't seek psychiatric counseling.

They don't believe they have a problem. Therefore, they can never be diagnosed, by these professional standards.

Therefore, there are no narcissists.

And Trump is normal.

[Doodley]

29. That seems to be exactly what these do-good, politically correct types are saying. We can have a mad

man who is leader of the free world with the ability to start wars, or even a nuclear holocaust, and none of us should ever say he is mad because that is unethical.

[Rollo]

30. A bit moot...

Because one doesn't need an advanced degree and a license to practice to know that Trump is bat shit crazy...