63000 mental health workers say that Donald Trump is too dangerous to be President

[Open Heart]

In January, a few thousand mental health professionals, led by John Gartner, organized a Facebook petition warning that Donald Trump is psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. By April, the group, Duty to Warn, at a conference at Yale, agreed that the issue no longer was whether Trump is mentally ill but whether he’s dangerous. This week, Duty to Warn, now 63,000 signatories strong, not only broadcast that message in a wildly successful book—The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, edited by Bandy X. Lee, M.D., debuted near the top of The New York Times best-seller list—but became a political action committee (PAC).

A Political Prescription for Donald Trump's Brain

 

[Oldmantook]

We can certainly trust their opinion. [sarcasm]

 

[Radagast]

Those 63,000 signatories are mostly not "mental health workers," of course.

 

[Soyeong]

Is it just me or are mental health workers supposed to have a relationship with their patient before they make a diagnosis? And then isn't there supposed to patient confidentiality? And how many of them are even qualified to make such a diagnosis? Just because someone works in the mental health industry doesn't necessarily mean that they have the qualifications to diagnose patients.

 

[Go Braves]

Well I don't think you need to be a mental health professional to come to that diagnosis. You just need to have a working brain and been paying attention.

 

[Radagast]

Is it just me or are mental health workers supposed to have a relationship with their patient before they make a diagnosis?

Correct. For those (few) members of the 63,000 who are relevant professionals, it's a major breach of professional ethics. To quote the American Psychoanalytic Association: "the American Psychoanalytic Association expects psychoanalysts to exercise extreme caution when making statements to the media about public figures. Respect for the limits of psychoanalytic inference about individuals one does not know and has not interviewed indepth is essential."

From the American Psychological Association: "The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees ... that neither psychiatrists nor psychologists should offer diagnoses of candidates or any other living public figure they have never examined. ... Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to 'take precautions' that any statements they make to the media 'are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice' and 'do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established' with people in the public eye, including political candidates."

From the American Psychiatric Association code of ethics: "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 ... 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."

Ironically, should the question of President Trump's mental health ever come up in a 25th amendment scenario, this little political stunt has made it more difficult to assess his fitness for office with any credibility.

 

[Heber Book List]

What has this thread to do with Messianic Judaism, which is what these fora are meant to be about?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Go Ahead, Psychiatrists: Diagnose Donald Trump

But that was then. And then was before the age of Donald Trump. It was before the early-morning tweetstorms, before the febrile conspiracy theories, before the grandiosity and impulsiveness and the serial counter-factualism. It was before, in short, Americans made a man who at least appears unstable to a great many observers the most powerful person in the world. That has led a lot of people to argue that we may have over-learned the lesson of the Goldwater Rule and that it's time to scrap or at least suspend it.

That is precisely the position another professional group, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), has now taken. In an internal email, the association urged its 3,500 members to speak their minds on the matter of presidential mental health, and if they consider Trump unwell, to say so. According to the health and medicine website STAT, some members of the group have gone so far as to conclude that not only is it alright to weigh in on the matter of Presidential sanity, but that doctors have an affirmative "duty to warn."

 

[Radagast]

Go Ahead, Psychiatrists: Diagnose Donald Trump

I particularly like the way that article credits the APsaA with exactly the opposite position to the stand it has publicly taken.

 

[Waggles]

By April, the group, Duty to Warn, at a conference at Yale, agreed that the issue no longer was whether Trump is mentally ill but whether he’s dangerous. This week, Duty to Warn, now 63,000 signatories strong,

So what?
63,000 people with an agenda verses 63,000,000 Americans who have confidence in
Donald Trump.

But honestly as an outsider I think all 350 million of you are strange and peculiar.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I like the way that article credits the APsaA with exactly the opposite position to the stand it has publicly taken.

I like how the article links to APsaA's publicly viewable official guidelines on public figures so it can be read in its entirety, rather than merely posting a quote marooned from its context. The quote you posted is in the first paragraph of that position statement, but it's not a stand-alone; they proceed to explain how "at the same time, the American Psychoanalytic Association is committed to the principle of free speech and the extension of knowledge about psychoanalytic ideas." Their public position is in harmony with the internal email sent to members of the association.

 

[Radagast]

they proceed to explain how "at the same time, the American Psychoanalytic Association is committed to the principle of free speech and the extension of knowledge about psychoanalytic ideas."

And they continue with specific recommendations to psychoanalysts which categorically rule out any diagnosis of Trump based on his public behaviour:

• Avoid thinly veiled, disingenuous diagnostic interpretations of public figures, such as "I can't say anything about Senator Smith because I haven't interviewed him, but people who behave like him generally have a narcissistic personality disorder". Obviously, you are offering a diagnosis of Senator Smith.
• Communicate a range of possible psychoanalytic and other explanations for the behavior in question, with the clear statement that you don't know which if any of these is true about the particular public figure.
• Attempt to turn the conversation to an area where you can make definitive statements, such as the public reaction to the surprising behavior.
• Never make a definitive statement about the personal psychodynamics or diagnosis of a public figure.

Their public position is in harmony with the internal email sent to members of the association.

They have since issued a public clarification in response to rumours about the email, which endorses the previous recommendations.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

And they continue with specific recommendations to psychoanalysts which categorically rule out any diagnosis of Trump based on his public behaviour:

• Avoid thinly veiled, disingenuous diagnostic interpretations of public figures, such as "I can't say anything about Senator Smith because I haven't interviewed him, but people who behave like him generally have a narcissistic personality disorder". Obviously, you are offering a diagnosis of Senator Smith.
• Communicate a range of possible psychoanalytic and other explanations for the behavior in question, with the clear statement that you don't know which if any of these is true about the particular public figure.
• Attempt to turn the conversation to an area where you can make definitive statements, such as the public reaction to the surprising behavior.
• Never make a definitive statement about the personal psychodynamics or diagnosis of a public figure.

What you copied and pasted is in the position statement I linked for you, and no, it doesn't categorically rule out any diagnosis of Trump based on his public behavior. I think you are misconstruing some of what they've stated, perhaps due to unfamiliarity with the terminology. Members of the association can indeed do precisely as what the OP described and still be acting in accordance with the organization's official guidelines.

They have since issued a public clarification in response to rumours about the email, which endorses the previous recommendations.

What you've posted echoes what was stated in the article I linked in my first post here. Again, this is harmonious with their position statement and the internal email. Take note that the Goldwater Rule is an ethics code of the APA.

In an email to association members, our leadership did not encourage members to defy the “Goldwater Rule” which is a part of the ethics code of a different mental health organization, the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Rather, it articulated a distinct ethics position that represents the viewpoint of psychoanalysts. The field of psychoanalysis addresses the full spectrum of human behavior, and we feel that our concepts and understanding are applicable and valuable to understanding a wide range of human behaviors and cultural phenomenon. Our position statement regarding commenting on public figures is available here.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

In January, a few thousand mental health professionals, led by John Gartner, organized a Facebook petition warning that Donald Trump is psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. By April, the group, Duty to Warn, at a conference at Yale, agreed that the issue no longer was whether Trump is mentally ill but whether he’s dangerous. This week, Duty to Warn, now 63,000 signatories strong, not only broadcast that message in a wildly successful book—The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, edited by Bandy X. Lee, M.D., debuted near the top of The New York Times best-seller list—but became a political action committee (PAC).

A Political Prescription for Donald Trump's Brain

May I just say Yaawwn.

 

[Open Heart]

So what?
63,000 people with an agenda verses 63,000,000 Americans who have confidence in
Donald Trump.

But honestly as an outsider I think all 350 million of you are strange and peculiar.

According to a CBS poll released on October 31, 61% of Americans are not confident in Trump's ability to handle North Korea. Only 35% were confident. Americans don't believe Donald Trump can handle North Korea, poll shows

But the reason for this post is to gage the opinions of mental health professionals. You see, I want to know what experts have to say about this. Trump can bamboozle the average man because he is confident and they may be more interested in his conservative beliefs than his mental health. But an expert in psychology will see past that if there is a pathology present.

 

[Radagast]

What you copied and pasted is in the position statement I linked for you

What you copied and pasted is in the position statement I already quoted in my first post in this thread, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to "link it" for me.

And "Never make a definitive statement about the personal psychodynamics or diagnosis of a public figure" is fairly unambiguous. However, I do note that for the APsaA, this does not constitute a formal "medical ethics" requirement.

 

[Radagast]

But the reason for this post is to gage the opinions of mental health professionals. You see, I want to know what experts have to say about this.

Well, that failed. Most of the 63,000 were just random people signing a petition. And the only experts that have commented are ones that have breached medical ethics and professional procedures to do so. That breach renders them susceptible to the accusation that their "diagnosis" was simply influenced by their politics.

An unbiased expert opinion will not be available unless/until a 25th amendment scenario comes up, and a bunch of professional actually interview Trump.

 

[Open Heart]

That breach renders them susceptible to the accusation that their "diagnosis" was simply influenced by their politics.

And if you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida for ya. From what I've read, these psychiatrists say that in Trump's case, the pathology is so severe and obvious that it does not take a sitdown interview. I am not personally qualified to make a diagnosis, nor is anyone in this forum, but let's just take a peak at the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM-5) criteria.

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
The definition of NPD states that it comprises of a persistent manner of grandiosity, a continuous desire for admiration, along with a lack of empathy. It starts by early adulthood and occurs in a range of situations, as signified by the existence of any 5 of the next 9 standards (American Psychiatric Association, 2013):

• A grandiose logic of self-importance CHECK

• A fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty, or idyllic love CHECK
• A credence that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutions CHECK
• A desire for unwarranted admiration CHECK
• A sense of entitlement CHECK
• Interpersonally oppressive behavior CHECK
• No form of empathy CHECK
• Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her CHECK
• A display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudes CHECK

An individual only needs to meet 5 of 9 criteria for diagnosis as having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It appears that Trump meets 9 of 9.

 

[Radagast]

And if you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida for ya. From what I've read, these psychiatrists say that in Trump's case, the pathology is so severe and obvious that it does not take a sitdown interview.

And the relevant professional societies say that you can't do diagnosis that way. That's especially true for someone like Trump, who puts up a carefully constructed public persona.

That's not to say that they are necessarily wrong in how they classify Trump, but what they have done is not a reliable diagnosis procedure and, as I said, renders them susceptible to the accusation that their "diagnosis" was influenced by their politics.

 

[Open Heart]

And the relevant professional societies say that you can't do diagnosis that way. That's especially true for someone like Trump, who puts up a carefully constructed public persona.

And in most cases, you are correct. But to every rule there are exceptions.

One of the things about Trump is that he does NOT craft a public persona. He continues to open up his big fat mouth and blurt out things that are not appropriate, that indeed are embarrassing to have the President say. He does okay when he uses the teleprompter, but someone needs to get him off twitter.

I know you and I can't diagnose, but doesn't that DSM-5 checklist give you pause?