What Mental Health Experts Can Say About The Presidency

[steve2470]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-mental-health-experts-can-say-about-the-presidency_us_599dc703e4b0a296083be3c1

Bandy X. Lee, M.D. Forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine
Co-authored by Dee Mosbacher, M.D., Ph.D. and Nanette Gartrell, M.D.

The Goldwater rule, which specifies that psychiatrists cannot diagnose a public figure without a face-to-face evaluation, has contributed to the lack of discourse and education about Mr. Trump. An expansion of the rule by the American Psychiatric Association in March 2017 further compromised that possibility. Frequently overlooked is the fact that the Goldwater rule itself occurs under the ethical mandate to contribute to “the betterment of public health,” for which a professional may “share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general.” As a result, mental health issues are continually marginalized, and misconceptions persist. It is commonly assumed, for example, that mental impairment will cancel out responsibility, when this occurs only rarely. Also, mental illness does not imply violence: most mentally ill individuals are not violent, and most violent individuals are not mentally ill. What is important, therefore, is not the diagnosis but the combination of particular symptoms and the context — whether observed in a clinical setting or from afar — when assessing dangerousness.

In the case of President Trump, it has been apparent for some time that his inability or unwillingness to distinguish fact from fiction, rageful responses to criticism, lack of impulse control, and wanton disregard for the rule of law indicate emotional impairment rather than deliberate choice. Such signs and symptoms may be tolerable in a variety of settings, but not when this individual has command of the nuclear arsenal. Fitness for duty evaluations are a common practice among forensic psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, who follow a standard assessment procedure while applying it to the duty in question. Although military personnel who are responsible for relaying nuclear orders must undergo rigorous mental health and medical evaluations that assess fitness for duty, no such requirement exists for their commander-in-chief.

At a time of increasing conflict abroad and worsening divisions at home, we believe it is time to remedy this situation. The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which addresses presidential disability and succession, has never been invoked to evaluate whether a standing president is fit to serve. However, Congress has the ability to act within its provisions to create an independent, impartial panel of investigators to evaluate Mr. Trump’s fitness to fulfill the duties of the presidency. Congress can pass legislation to ensure that future presidential and vice-presidential candidates are evaluated by this professional panel before the general election, and that the sitting president and vice-president are assessed on an annual basis.

Our specific recommendations are as follows:

much more at link

[steve2470]

1. APA Reaffirms Support for Goldwater Rule

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-reaffirms-support-for-goldwater-rule

ARLINGTON, Va. March 16, 2017 — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) today reaffirmed its support behind the ethics guideline commonly known as “The Goldwater Rule,” which asserts that member psychiatrists should not give professional opinions about the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated.

The APA’s Ethics Committee issued an opinion that clarifies the ethical principle and answers questions that have been posed recently.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule.” The ethics principle is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. (See APA Blog on Goldwater Rule.) During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which it queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency. Goldwater would later sue the magazine, which was found liable for damages.

“It was unethical and irresponsible back in 1964 to offer professional opinions on people who were not properly evaluated and it is unethical and irresponsible today,” said APA President Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D. “In the past year, we have received numerous inquiries from member psychiatrists, the press and the public about the Goldwater Rule. We decided to clarify the ethical underpinnings of the principle and answer some of the common questions raised by our members. APA continues to support these ethical principles.”

In reaffirming the existing policy, the Ethics Committee explained the rationale behind the rule. For example, offering a professional opinion or a diagnosis of someone they have not thoroughly examined compromises the integrity of the doctor and the profession and it has the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness. Furthermore, when a physician publicly gives a professional opinion on a public figure without consent, it violates the principle that a psychiatric evaluation must occur with consent or authorization.

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose 37,000 physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders.


https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/Ethics/APA-Ethics-Committee-Goldwater-Opinion.pdf

https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2017/03/apa-remains-committed-to-supporting-goldwater-rule

[Warpy]

2. I like their recommendations.

It would be a part time gig, yearly exams or an exam as needed being sufficient for most presidents.

They'd have gotten Reagan out before his cronies could do quite as much damage as they did.

We'd have been stuck with Stupid, unfortunately.

[steve2470]

3. I do too nt

[BigmanPigman]

4. They should put country over party and implement this NOW

and use it now and for all future candidates. Of course they won't since they would rather get their BS agenda passed and allow this country to be destroyed by one of their own.

[steve2470]

5. agreed nt