Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Psychiatrists can now comment on Trump


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Psychiatry Group Says Members Can Comment on Trump’s Mental Health

A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures—even the president. The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents the first significant crack in the profession’s decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians’ behavior. It will likely make many of its members feel more comfortable speaking openly about President Trump’s mental health.

Read more: Scientiic American

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now they come to their senses ... too little too late for the Freudian Slips ....

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychiatry from behind a computer screen, to diss a President. I have been doing that for years lol

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, this should lead to some fun reading. What will be really interesting is to see if there are dissenting opinions. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing they just now get this grand idea...

Now maybe if they decide to put all members of congress and senate under the same microscope just maybe...? :wacko:

We have a senator with an agressive brain tumor,who just had surgery and told not to fly,but by god he's been telling others for decades whats best for them and how they should live so he won't relinquish power now!

How about the other untold amounts of career politicians...WTF is wrong with them?WTF is wrong with those who keep voting for the same scumbags to stay in power after seeing nothing really ever change?!

Wonder how many psychiatrists have to see psychiatrists...what's their issues?hmmmm :lol:

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me guess, it'll be free fire on Donnie Turnip and nothing at all on the Pantsuit Monster?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Let me guess, it'll be free fire on Donnie Turnip and nothing at all on the Pantsuit Monster?

Of course, that said though the next "pantsuit monster" put forth by the left will be faced with the same scrutiny. In reading some background articles on the "goldwater rule" apparently this has been a bone of contention with shrinks for a long time, so i imagine now that the floodgates are open it wont stop with Snookie Donnie. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like everyone has been on this forum ever since aannounced his intention to run, few of them allowing themselves to be hampered by not having any qualifications in psychiatry in the slightest? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Of course, that said though the next "pantsuit monster" put forth by the left will be faced with the same scrutiny.

do you really think so? the law is that "Democratic" party candidates must not be questioned in any way, since it's their automatic right to ascend to the throne. it's like questioning the Queen's right to reign. it's just not done. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

do you really think so? the law is that "Democratic" party candidates must not be questioned in any way, since it's their automatic right to ascend to the throne. it's like questioning the Queen's right to reign. it's just not done. 

LOL You have a point but I think the ability to garner 5 minutes of fame for analyzing a political candidate will be way too appealing for folks to only dissect right leaning politicians. Hell i can totally envision a near future where every news outlet has their own staff shrink for such things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

This, this should lead to some fun reading. What will be really interesting is to see if there are dissenting opinions. 

what, you mean anyone who dares to suggest that they're not actually qualified to state, purely from watching him on TV and tw*tter, that he's a raving psychopath with multiple personality issues? Of course there won't be. They know where their bread is buttered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

what, you mean anyone who dares to suggest that they're not actually qualified to state, purely from watching him on TV and tw*tter, that he's a raving psychopath with multiple personality issues? Of course there won't be. They know where their bread is buttered. 

From what ive been reading today the mass consensus appears to be that analysis from afar is proper when there is a large amount of publicly available information, in Trumps case that goes back 40 some years. Plus the shrinks I have known (the non court ordered ones :P j/k) were basically the physical embodiment of ego as it pertained to their jobs so I dont see many saying they arent qualified to analyze. 

What im interested in is are there any out there who don't believe Trump is mentally damaged to the point of being a threat. We've already seen reports from alot of shrinks saying they believe dude is all messed up and that was before it was 'proper' for them to do so. Are there any who dissent? 

I gotta wonder if this will help the dems push the 25th amendment case. Get enough shrinks analyzing him on the news networks and eventually there will be a cry for it to be done for real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What im interested in is are there any out there who don't believe Trump is mentally damaged to the point of being a threat. We've already seen reports from alot of shrinks saying they believe dude is all messed up and that was before it was 'proper' for them to do so. Are there any who dissent? 

Well that's what I mean, they know they'll get endless favorable coverage all over the media if they say what everyone (the media, at any rate) want them to say, won't they. They'd probably get themselves a nicely rewarded little position as CNMSMBC's resident shrink, available to offer his opinion of Trump. V. Putin, Kim Dong Whatshisname and anyone else they want for a very generous fee! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well that's what I mean, they know they'll get endless favorable coverage all over the media if they say what everyone (the media, at any rate) want them to say, won't they. They'd probably get themselves a nicely rewarded little position as CNMSMBC's resident shrink, available to offer his opinion of Trump. V. Putin, Kim Dong Whatshisname and anyone else they want for a very generous fee! 

Oh that is actually so funny because it is true.  The news networks will start hiring psychiatrists to get mental evaluations of everyone on the air.

Maybe this was a move by the organization to stir up some business! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me guess: Progressive shrinks say Trump is totally nuts. Conservative shrinks say Trump is simply eccentric.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for the code of ethics saying you have to actually meet someone to diagnose.

I guess all it took was for them to really hate the president to change that rule :mellow:

The next statement will be that "it's now okay to preach the evils if trump to your clients, forget about the old rules of objective therapy, it is our duty to enlighten "

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So much for the code of ethics saying you have to actually meet someone to diagnose.

I guess all it took was for them to really hate the president to change that rule :mellow:

The next statement will be that "it's now okay to preach the evils if trump to your clients, forget about the old rules of objective therapy, it is our duty to enlighten "

Nah, in reading about this its something which has been a point of contention in psychiatry for a long time. 

That said though you're not too far off on the duty to enlighten part, if as medical professionals they see red flags which could potentially harm our nation, hell our world they truly do have a duty to enlighten - not their clients but the public. 

Just like the medical professionals who commented on Hillarys health throughout the campaign. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Nah, in reading about this its something which has been a point of contention in psychiatry for a long time. 

That said though you're not too far off on the duty to enlighten part, if as medical professionals they see red flags which could potentially harm our nation, hell our world they truly do have a duty to enlighten - not their clients but the public. 

Just like the medical professionals who commented on Hillarys health throughout the campaign. 

Idk it was drilled in to me in school that it's unethical and wrong to diagnose someone without meeting them. You can't do it through second hand stories from say a a partner or news.

But I also just noticed that this is the "psychoanalytic"association lol

 

Not the American psychology association "APA. Or the American pyschatrist association, or the NASW national social work association.

Iv actually never heard of this group with there 3.5k members 

For comparison the actual APA has over 120k members 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Idk it was drilled in to me in school that it's unethical and wrong to diagnose someone without meeting them. You can't do it through second hand stories from say a a partner or news.

Yeah i know but I dont know that I agree that's an accurate position anymore. I dont know if it was the OP article or a different one I was reading but they make the claim that governments use psychiatrists to analyze leaders of foreign nations all the time.   

 

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Not the American psychology association "APA. Or the American pyschatrist association, or the NASW national social work association.

 

What i didnt know until today is the APA doesnt have a hard rule like the goldwater rule, i actually find that kinda hard to believe  :

Quote

Although the American Psychological Association “prefers” that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one, an official told STAT.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all seems highly dodgy. I'm not sure that it is 'allowed' in the UK for a doctor to discuss anybody's medical condition in public ? Wouldn't this be flirting with a breach of medical confidence ? (even IF the "diagnosis" is based on public appearances/pictures etc).

Surely something similar would be applicable to diagnosing mental conditions ?

I would have thought it would also risk a lawsuit for .. well... slander or something ?

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

This, this should lead to some fun reading. What will be really interesting is to see if there are dissenting opinions. 

of course not.  This only applies to Prog psychiatrists.  Conservative ones need not apply.  It would be unethical for a Conservative to offer a dissenting opinion.

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it now, loads of tweets about FAKE shrinks.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lilly said:

Let me guess: Progressive shrinks say Trump is totally nuts. Conservative shrinks say Trump is simply eccentric.

 

This is the third time shrinks are publicly saying the obvious, and each time it was made clear they are breaking their rule because they think a man with these types of disorders or even illness is dangerous, especially put in his position. 

I haven't noticed yet any psychiatrist countering their professional opinion. It will happen, certainly, but no one was in a hurry to say Trump leaves impression of a person fit for the duty.     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah i know but I dont know that I agree that's an accurate position anymore. I dont know if it was the OP article or a different one I was reading but they make the claim that governments use psychiatrists to analyze leaders of foreign nations all the time.   

 

 

and look what bloody accurate estimates and predictions of the things they're likely to do they always make there! It's always "if this person is a leader of a country we don't like: Mad and Evil." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

and look what bloody accurate estimates and predictions of the things they're likely to do they always make there! It's always "if this person is a leader of a country we don't like: Mad and Evil." 

Are you saying that you really do not see anything particularly strange in Trump's behaviour? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.