Reply With Quote
RandomGuy
Not sure why I can't quote you right now, but of course it is.
That is not the point though.
Is the Goldwater Rule still in place or not?
Yes or no, is the president's mental health important?
RandomGuy
Not sure why I can't quote you right now, but of course it is.
That is not the point though.
Is the Goldwater Rule still in place or not?
The Goldwater rule was a self-declared rule on the part of psychiatrists.
Given that quite a few of those same people have said that it should no longer apply, the answer to your question is therefore:
No.
Now that we have agreed that the president's mental health is important.
How do we go about assessing it? Show him a picture of a camel?
Or something else a bit more in depth?
Now you're just lying.
Ok, then, let's walk through this, and see if it really is a lie. Bear with me here.
Now you're just lying.
What is the Goldwater Rule? (in your own words, short, but as specific as you can)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-17-2018 at 11:47 AM.
It’s a rule the APA has that states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give diagnoses on people they haven’t examined in person. You can be kicked out of the APA for violating it. You know this so I’m not sure why you’re asking the question.
Trump’s Mental Health is Worsening: ‘Pray For Our Country
The mental stability of the President of the United States
has come to the forefront of the issues which must be discussed and addressed by the American people.
This morning MSNBC host Joe Scarborough once again raised the issue which urgently needs attention right now by tweeting:
“Anyone who has known Trump for years, and doesn’t have a stake in his political career or the GOP, says the same.
He is unwell and has been getting progressively worse over the past 18 months.”
Wehner wrote:
“Mr. Trump was emotionally/psychologically unwell when he became president.
His condition is clearly worsening.
He’s becoming more volatile, erratic and unstable.
At some point he’s going to blow apart.
When he does it’ll create a crisis.
This won’t end well. Pray for our country.”
she believes the president to be a man in “mental decline.” According to Omarosa
Trump would “forget from one day to the next.”
In her book Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House,she wrote:
“He was distracted, irritable, and short.
I was going over his speech, but he couldn’t retain any of the bullet points.
I went over them again and again, and
what he should say to the press after the event.
But he couldn’t remember the key points and
stumbled over the large words,
which we scratched out and replaced with simpler terms.”
This issue is taking on greater importance as
Trump continues to make irrational moves that seem both desperate and designed to consolidate his power.
In recent weeks he has been behaving in ways that are contrary to the U.S. Cons ution’s structure of separation of powers.
He has also been trying to punish his critics for speaking out against him by taking away their First Amendment rights.
The more Trump is threatened by impending legal actions the more extreme his actions become.
It is imperative that this risk be analyzed and addressed.
As a nation we cannot afford to keep ignoring the obvious signs of mental breakdown on the part of our president.
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08...r-country.html
Not a partisan political issue, except that Trash's cult is about as ing ed up as he is.
So you have an ethical standard, and debate about the limits of that ethical standard, i.e. "duty to warn".
When does the danger someone might pose cause an ethical duty to warn?
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.o....pn.2017.11b13
The Dangerous Case of Psychiatrists Writing About the POTUS’s Mental Health
JEFFREY LIEBERMAN
M.D.
Published Online:15 Nov 2017https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.11b13
The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (St. Martin’s Press, 2017) was recently published with great fanfare and much attention. The book consists of 24 chapters, most of which offer clinical opinions of President Trump. It was edited by a Yale psychiatrist, Bandy Lee, M.D., and a group of psychiatrists, analysts, and therapists.
While I can certainly understand how concerned citizens would react to Mr. Trump’s unconventional and often offensive behavior by expressing their discomfort and disapproval, it is not acceptable for psychiatrists to publicly proclaim diagnoses and proffer clinical opinions of the POTUS, as this violates a key principle of psychiatry and our professional ethics.
Because I’m on record supporting adherence to the Goldwater Rule (see https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/contrib...a-lieberman-md), I was accorded the dubious honor of debating the authors on the evening of October 16 in the Uris Auditorium of the Weil-Cornell Medical College. I accepted with no small degree of ambivalence, knowing that the audience of mental health professionals would likely not be sympathetic to my position. Yet it is this position, which I firmly believe, that APA has espoused, not because it is a stodgy, establishment organization, but because it is advocating principled and responsible professional conduct.
I began my remarks with a disclaimer of sorts, revealing that I had been an advisor to Secretary Clinton’s campaign for mental health policy and contributed to her mental health agenda. I was present at the Javits Center on election night for what we all expected to be a historic celebratory event. Seated next to the stage, I witnessed the euphoric and optimistic throng metamorphose into a funereal experience as the results poured in, shattering hopes of what might have been.
Since then, I have been among the many who are shocked and saddened by President Trump’s behavior and can well understand the impulse toward protest and activism that motivated Dr. Lee and her colleagues to formally express their views in this book. However, as a physician and psychiatrist, I cannot condone and must strongly criticize these actions as unprofessional, unethical, and irresponsible.
I embrace the First Amendment and subscribe to Voltaire’s famous quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, the matter of Donald Trump’s mental status is different from the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, or abortion rights in which physicians have historically expressed their strong support for social justice. In opining on the POTUS’s mental health, we are using our professional credentials to express a medical opinion when we have neither the right nor the evidence to do so.
Psychiatry’s history is marked by too many missteps in the past to allow itself to be drawn into an exercise of political partisanship, disguised as patriotism, that risks eroding the credibility of our profession. We have infamously been involved, unwittingly or knowingly, in human rights abuses in countries across the world when the definitions of mental disease were manipulated to include political dissidents and civil disobedience. Such instances are too numerous to summarize in this article, but among the most egregious were the collusion of psychiatry in the crimes of eugenics in Nazi Germany and political repression of the Soviet Union. We must be aware that psychiatry possesses a greater capacity for abuse than other medical specialties because it can be exploited to bypass standard legal and governmental procedures for establishing guilt, innocence, or competence and ostensibly legitimizes political action, even incarceration, without the odium ordinarily attached to such political conflicts.
The cons utional mechanisms for removing a sitting president from office consist of elections, impeachment, and the 25th Amendment of the Cons ution. Elections reflect the will of the people; impeachment applies when the POTUS may have committed “crimes and misdemeanors,” and the 25th Amendment pertains to questions of presidential competence and consists of four sections.
- Section 1 applies when a president is impeached from office, dies, or resigns, and then the vice president becomes president. The best-known example is Richard Nixon’s resignation and Gerald Ford’s succession as POTUS.
- Section 2 applies when the vice president dies or resigns, as Spiro Agnew did when faced with charges of corruption.
- Section 3 provides for the voluntary transfer of power by the president to the vice president when he/she is, or will be, incapacitated, such as when Reagan was shot, and other presidents have undergone medical procedures involving general anesthesia (even routine colonoscopies). When they regain capacity, presidential authority is transferred back to them.
- Section 4 has never been invoked. It allows the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [cabinet secretaries] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” by submitting a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives. In such instances, the vice president becomes acting president. Section 4 is meant to be invoked should the president’s incapacitation prevent him from discharging his duties, but he is unable or unwilling to provide the written declaration as called for by Section 3. When this is done, Congress has 21 days to decide the issue of competence and need for change.
In such a scenario, physicians and particularly psychiatrists almost certainly need to have a role. But their (our) role is not to initiate—that is done through the Cons utional mechanisms—it is to assist in the process as needed. To take clinical potshots and lob diagnostic grenades at the POTUS through the media is not the optimal course of action. To do so is to engage in partisan tabloid psychiatry, which harms our profession. Sadly, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is not a serious, scholarly, civic-minded work, but simply tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry.
As citizens and psychiatrists, we are en led to express our opinions of the POTUS as a First Amendment right. However, when we draw on our credentials as physicians to render a clinical diagnosis with insuffient information and under unconducive cir stances as grounds for removal from office, we cross a boundary into an unprofessional, unethical, and perilous realm. Even though we may feel stirred to what may seem patriotic action, as were our colonial forebears, by Thomas Paine’s immortal words, “These are the times that try men’s souls,” we should do well to remember two quotes by oratorical geniuses: “Discretion is the better part of valor” (Falstaff in Henry IV) by William Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson’s rueful quote some years later, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” On such occasions, our best course of action is to exercise professional discipline and the forbearance to allow the cons utionally prescribed mechanisms to do as they were intended and in due course. ■
"to allow the cons utionally prescribed mechanisms to do as they were intended and in due course."
That assumes that the "mechanisms" operate in good faith, pro-government responsibility.
the Repugs, party of racism, hate, paranoia, govt destruction, are the party of BAD FAITH
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-21-2018 at 10:04 AM.
You remember Hillary with the coal, right, sitting with the miners at the table? Remember? That wasn't so good for her. So the people of West Virginia and all over, you look at Wyoming, you look at so many different places where they just, Pennsylvania, where they loved what we did, and it's clean coal and we have the most modern procedures.
But it's a tremendous form of energy in the sense that in a military way, think of it, coal is indestructible.
You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up windmills. You know the windmills, boom boom boom bing, that's the end of that one.
If the birds don't kill it first. The birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds. You look underneath some of those windmills, it's like a killing field, the birds.
But you know, that's what they were going to, they were going to windmills. And you know, don't worry about when the wind doesn't blow. I said "What happens when the wind doesn't blow? "Well then we have a problem." OK good.
They were putting them in areas where they didn't have much wind, too. And it's a subsidiary, you need a subsidy for windmills. You need subsidy. Who wants to have energy where you need subsidy? So, uh, the coal is doing great.
What? The birds could kill it, right?
you don't need to be a pro psychologist to know
Woodward book.
"crazytown"
Amarosa's account.
Record turnover.
NYT op-ed.
The evidence piles up and piles up, and continues to paint a picture of an unstable, sick mind.
As long as he has the magic R though... its ok with you, right?
The 25th Amendment: The Difficult Process to Remove a President
How would it actually work, if invoked now?
The first step would be for Vice President Mike Pence and a majority of the cabinet to provide a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate (currently Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah) and the speaker of the House (currently Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin)
that Mr. Trump “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
That would immediately strip Mr. Trump of the powers of his office and make Mr. Pence the acting president.
But the 25th Amendment would allow Mr. Trump to immediately send a written declaration of his own to Mr. Hatch and Mr. Ryan saying that he is in fact able to perform his duties.
That would immediately allow him to resume his duties,
unless Mr. Pence and the cabinet send another declaration to the congressional leaders within four days restating their concerns.
Mr. Pence would take over again as acting president.
That declaration would require Congress to assemble within 48 hours and to vote within 21 days.
If two-thirds of members of both the House and the Senate agreed that Mr. Trump was unable to continue as president,
he would be stripped permanently of the position, and
Mr. Pence would become president.
If the vote in Congress fell short, Mr. Trump would resume his duties.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/u...anonymous.html
I don't give a about the "magic R". There is no reliable evidence to show Trump's mental capacities have deteriorated.
There is rather good video evidence, some of which I have posted.
Is hours of unscripted interview video evidence not "reliable"?
We have multiple accounts, well-sourced, of direct accounts of people with contact with him that describe someone with childlike mental processes.
Are they ALL not "reliable"? If so, why are they not reliable?
So, now we have a book where discussions of the 25th have been whispered here and there. The insiders know.
Now what?
Even if Trash's Exec goes 25th, the Repug Congress won't. The Senate has NEVER convicted an impeached Pres.
Unless he dies, we're stuck with Trash until 2020.
Thousands of mental health professionals agree with Woodward and the New York Times op-ed author: Trump is dangerous
These are obviously psychological symptoms reflective of emotional compulsion, impulsivity, poor concentration, narcissism and recklessness.
They are identical to those that Woodward describes in numerous examples,
which he writes were met with the “stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters.”
we observed were signs of mental instability –
signs that would eventually play out not only in the White House, as these accounts report, but in domestic situations and in the geopolitical sphere.
Getting worse
My current concern is that we are already witnessing a further unraveling of the president’s mental state, especially as the frequency of his lying increases and the fervor of his rallies intensifies.
I am concerned that his mental challenges could cause him to take unpredictable and potentially extreme and dangerous measures to distract from his legal problems.
Mental health professionals have standard procedures for evaluating dangerousness. More than a personal interview, violence potential is best assessed through past history and a structured checklist of a person’s characteristics.
These characteristics include a history of cruelty to animals or other people, risk taking, behavior suggesting loss of control or impulsivity, narcissistic personality and current mental instability.
Also of concern are noncompliance or unwillingness to undergo tests or treatment, access to weapons, poor relationship with significant other or spouse, seeing oneself as a victim, lack of compassion or empathy, and lack of concern over consequences of harmful acts.
The Woodward book and the New York Times op-ed confirm many of these characteristics.
The rest have been evident in Trump’s behavior outside the White House and prior to his tenure.
That the president has met not just some but all these criteria should be reason for alarm.
Other ways in which a president could be dangerous are through cognitive symptoms or lapses, since functions such as reasoning, memory, attention, language and learning are critical to the duties of a president. He has exhibited signs of decline here, too.
The president has already shown an alarming escalation of irrational behavior during times of distress.
Others have observed him to be “unstable,” “losing a step” and “unraveling.” He is likely to enter such a state again.
We are now entering a period when the stresses of the presidency could accelerate because of the advancing special counsel’s investigations.
The degree of Trump’s denial and resistance to the unfolding revelations, as expressed in a recent Fox interview, are telling of his fragility.
In the case of danger,
the patient does not have the right to refuse,
nor does the physician have the right not to take the person as a patient.
This evaluation may have been delayed, but it is still not too late.
https://theconversation.com/thousand...ngerous-102755
Lock 'im Up!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
