In Trump era, mental health experts are rethinking Goldwater Rule

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Since Donald Trump became president, commentary about his public statements, tweeting habits, predilections and even his personality has become something of a national pastime.

Some in the professional psychiatric community have been moved to join in, offering their own expert analysis on why the president says what he says and does what he does.

But should they? Not according to the American Psychiatric Association, which years ago adopted a rule for its 37,000 licensed members against offering a public opinion about the mental health or general psychological makeup of a public figure.

It's known as the Goldwater Rule, and in the era of President Trump, it's suddenly the subject of vigorous discussion — most recently at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association last month in San Diego.

Here are some details on the debate:

Q: What is the Goldwater Rule?

A: It's officially known as Section 7.3 of the American Psychiatric Association's code of ethics.

This is how the organization's ethics committee defines it: "On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-trump-era-mental-health-experts-are-rethinking-goldwater-rule/ar-BBCW7Vt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

[Buns_of_Fire]

1. After revision, Section 7.3 will be renamed the "Trump Rule"

While still unethical to remotely diagnose a public figure, it will be acceptable to state "That boy ain't right".

[Doreen]

2. Ethics, ethical, and unethical?

Those things are not long for this society. Why even talk about them? All we are going to be left with is protecting ourselves from the unethical who will not be breaking any law anymore. Publicly telling someones mental state is not unethical if you want to compare it to abusing and killing millions of people. Which one does everyone think is unethical?

[marylandblue]

3. The article ends on what I think is a fair compromise

You can't diagnose someone without an exam in most cases because many behaviors can have moee tha one cause. Trump could have dementia or he could be having a side effect of some medication. He could have one or more of several different personality disorders and even with an exam, psychiatrists might not agree on a diagnosis.

BUT, psychiatrists could point out that certain behaviors are abnormal, dangerous or disqualifying for a leadership position. That makes more sense to me than trying to give a diagnosis, and less likely to result in a lawsuit, since just about what the person does in public, not what causes the behavior.

[UTUSN]

4. Forget clinical diagnoses, he's an ASSHOLE who shouldn't be in public office!1

[marylandblue]

6. I agree with your diagnosis of Asshole Personality Disorder Dr. Utusn

And recommend he be confined to a mental hospital specializing in treatment of assholes.

[snot]

5. Also, it's not like we need a psychiatrist to tell us he's dangerous.

And if a psychiatrist confirmed it, his supporters would discount it anyway.

[marylandblue]

7. True, it would just provide some professional perspective

Just like foreign policy and military experts provided their own opinions.