Is it ethical for a psychiatrist to diagnose a public figure?

[BurtWorm]

I don't think so. Charles Krauthammer pulls that shit all the time, insinuating every Democratic candidate in memory was insane. Now Justin Frank is doing it on Bush, and while what he says resonates with me a lot more than anything Krauthammer says, I thinks it's an abuse of psychiatry, which is supposedly about helping people, to hide behind their profession to smear a political enemy as "certifiable." It's a cheap Stalinist tactic that suggests any psychiatrist who pulls it harbors contempt for people with mental illness.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-frank/the-bush-syndrome-in-livi_b_11537.html


The "Bush Syndrome" has always included the overt dismissal of father in favor of what he told Bob Woodward in 2003 was a "higher father." But this photo is more peculiar and more grandiose than all his others -- from Mount Rushmore to Mission Accomplished -- and is reminiscent of Berlin in the 1930s. As the earlier photo essays involve role playing, so too does this one. Only the role depicted here isn't evocative of Jesus or even of a democratically elected president.

The Bush Syndrome is also about avoiding responsibility, which to him means avoiding shame. This photo depicts the massive efforts to which Bush will go to avoid shame. For him, changing his mind admits having made a mistake, and that is humiliating. For this reason alone his speech was no surprise. He cannot change because he cannot be at the mercy of all those ghosts of his past who mocked and belittled him - starting with his parents.

It is ever so clear that this president is too incompetent to govern, too frozen in a defensive idea of himself as never wrong. He has excessive fears of being shamed which contribute to his inability to change courses or to admit failure. To paraphrase President Kennedy - someone who is most likely not one of Bush's heroes - it is essential to admit mistakes when they happen to prevent them from becoming failures. We have a failed presidency. We have a destructive president who will continue letting our troops die just so he can save face.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Yes, it is ethical

The profilers do it all the time, with private and public figures.

The CIA, especially, perfected this method, and passed it along to the FBI.

Read "Bush On The Couch" for a really first-rate discussion of this very topic.

[BurtWorm]

5. But they don't usually share their findings with the public.

Some media whores do on cable news tabloid shows, for sure.

To me, the line gets crossed when the psychiatrist is broadcasting a diagnosis to support a position unrelated to the health of the person in question. Krauthammer always does it at the service of the RNC. It's a cheap dirty trick. How is what Frank does with Bush any different?

[Midlodemocrat]

9. I agree with you, BurtWorm.

I am not above saying 'dear God, he's a fucking loon', but that is hardly a dx. I wouldn't ever presume to diagnose someone without testing or face to face meetings. I can't think of any of my colleagues who would.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. It's no different

You're absolutely right.

But, the rules are very, very different for public figures. This is a perfect example of that.

Just like libel laws. There's a whole different - stricter - standard to be met by public figures.

[NWHarkness]

36. My wife has been a practicing psychologist for over 30 years

She regards it as absolutely, under all circumstances, no wriggle room unethical to even speculate a diagnosis in regard to anyone she has not personally seen.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. That's her personal belief,

and worthy, certainly, of respect.

But, I'm also a clinician, and there are no prohibitions against this sort of thing. I do understand your wife's concern, and, to some extent, I share it, but when it's done as a matter of profiling, I find it completely acceptable.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. I don't think so.

I was a licensed, practicing psychologist for a while and I don't think it is ever ethical to diagnose someone (seriously, not in jest) without them being your patient.

One of the reasons I kept my degree private around here is that I specialized in treating children/adolescents and where I used to live, I got people all the time asking me to 'help' with their child, of course, without being a patient.

I believe it to be unethical, but frankly, I don't know where the AMA would stand on it.

[Maat]

6. I did my intern hours for the family-therapist license out here in Cal.

I then went into social work (went off on a different fun career track ... ending up completing my law degreee after going to court so many years as part of the social work job).

Anyway, I agree with you. I don't think what Charles K. does is ethical.

"Bush on the Couch" doesn't seem as much of a sin to me, since it talks about behaviors and possible causes, and doesn't seemed to be smart-ass diagnosis.

Just my two cents' worth.

[BurtWorm]

17. I confess: I haven't read Bush on the Couch

but some of his language in his Huffington Post's bothers me.

"It is ever so clear that this president is too incompetent to govern, too frozen in a defensive idea of himself as never wrong."

I totally agree with that assessment, but it seems wrong for a psychiatrist to be making the pronouncement as a psychiatrist. Is "incompetence to govern" in the DSM IV?

[tigereye]

44. well he isn't exactly making a DSM diagnosis, is he?

if he were, that would be pretty uncool.

[ultraist]

52. No, he isn't diagnosing.

Observing his behaviors and speculating is NOT the same as a clinical diagnosis.

That article does NOT read like a clinical diagnosis and I've read a few, those of clients I had as a social worker who had undergone testing.

[tigereye]

74. you can't really make a diagnosis unless you've actually seen

someone as a patient, and then, you wouldn't be able to reveal it anyway, certainly not in public....

[Maat]

70. You have a point.

I guess I found much of what the author said interesting.

But he probably should stay far away from implying that what he said was or is anything close to a diagnosis.

I think that he has every right to state his qualifications, but the author of "Bush on the Couch" should make it clear that he is basing what he says on research and observations, and interpreting this in light of his education and experience.

Like others have said here, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Wilms]

3. Is it ethical to keep quiet when a madman has ceased the WH? n/t

[JuniperLea]

35. Aye

There's the rub, indeed.

;)

[marions ghost]

60. Bingo

or u could say...can we not have honest speculation from experts when a madman has seized the White House?

Everything about such a public figure is analyzed and scrutinized. Why should the workings of his head be any different?

I consider it a symptom of our dysfunctional system that the mental dissolution of Ronald Reagan was covered up in his second term and he was allowed to continue to (appear to) govern.

[rooboy]

4. Justin Frank is a psychiatrist. Is Charles Krauthammer? n/t

[BurtWorm]

8. Yes he is.

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/krauthammer.html

[Cerridwen]

22. Sort of...

from your link:

"a board-certified psychiatrist who received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School and practiced psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital for several years..." please notice the past tense of "practiced" and that he did so for "several years."


Whereas, Justin Frank, M.D.'s bio says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=justin-frank&name=Justin%20Frank

"A clinician with more than thirty year's experience..."
"He is...a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center, and a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute."
"Dr. Frank did his psychiatric residency at Harvard Medical School and was chief resident at the Cambridge Hospital. Dr. Frank was also awarded the DuPont-Warren Fellowship by Massachusetts General Hospital.
Dr. Frank lives in Washington D.C. where he teaches and practices psychoanalysis."

Notice his credentials appear current, active and extensive rather than historic, perhaps inactive and less than extensive.

edit to add link to Dr. Frank's bio.

[BurtWorm]

26. I don't think currency makes any difference as far as this issue goes.

They're both presenting themselves as experts in psychiatry making pronouncements about the mental health of public figures as an argument about their soundness to govern.

[Cerridwen]

34. Which is why I responded to the "is he a psychiatrist issue" only...n/t

[No Exit]

67. He's a combination gargoyle-psychiatrist.

I used to think it would be kind of neat to have doctors in politics. After seeing the performance of doctors like Frist and this gargoyle Krauthammer, I no longer think that.

And I think Dean would be just the same as he is, without his medical degree.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Well, for the good of our country, I have to say,

in this case, YES, it's not only ethical, it's warranted and NEEDED! He really is mentally ill/unstable and needs to be in a mental hospital, not sitting in the WH ruining our country and starting wars.

[BurtWorm]

11. I just wonder what good it really does.

What makes what Franks does any different from what Frist pretended to be able to do looking at a video of Terry Schiavo?

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Terry Schiavo isn't/wasn't the POTUS.

Bush is and he's NUTS! Someone needs to diagnose him (someone who's respected and has a very good reputation...and if he/she was a repuke, that would be even better)and go to the media.

[BurtWorm]

27. Why? What good does it do?

Bush's nuts aren't manifest enough without having an "authority" certify him for us?

[JuniperLea]

37. Agreed

But we can't even get detailed medical information on him, let alone psychological. There oughta be a law.

[BurtWorm]

61. Again, I ask what good it does?

You can't commit Bush based on the word of Justin Frank that he ought to be committed. You can't cite Frank's word that Bush is nuts to get him impeached.

His word serves as a balm for all of us nonpsychiatrists who think Bush is nuts anyway. That's the extent of the good it does. But it also damages the profession of psychiatry when it's misused that way.

[Benhurst]

10. I think it depends on the psychiatrist and the public figure.

Charles Kruthammer is neither a good psychiatrist nor a good man. Anything he writes could and should be considered suspect.

On the other hand, the Bush Crime Family through the so-called Patriot Act and an almost total disregard of the Constitution has transformed the presidency into a virtual dictatorship.

Any light which can be shed on the unelected Leader as he continues to manifest increasingly clear signs of instability, is welcome.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. But, see that is where I see a problem.

Of course, WE all think he is highly unstable, but a great deal of the country doesn't. I think it hurts the issue of his unstability when he is diagnosed via television by someone who is NOT his doctor.

Sort of like the whole Frist/Terri Schiavo fiasco. I never liked Frist, but I didn't really have anything negative to say about his medical training or diagnostic abilities until that. Now I think he is a complete quack.

[BurtWorm]

18. Yes, ma'am.

Me too.

[Benhurst]

33. As a general rule, I agree with you. But we are talking about

the presidency of the United States, an office which was already too powerful before the Bush Crime Family transformed it into a virtual dictatorship.

Looking back on it, shouldn't some trained professional have stood up and said Reagan was exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimer's? At the time, I accepted the prevailing "wisdom" he was just stupid. Years later, having read much more about the disease, I realize that it must have been obvious to professionals that there was a high degree of likelihood he was in the throes of the disease. And given the frightening powers of the office, public warnings should have sounded.

Unfortunately for the world, Bush has stolen the most powerful position in the world. Past experience has shown reports from presidential physical examinations border on farce, the doctors probably excusing themselves on the grounds on doctor/patient privilege. If Bush is exhibiting what a trained professional perceives as mental aberrations, the whole world deserves to know.

Zell Miller is probably senile; but even when he was still an individual member of the Senate, it didn't really matter much to the fate of the world. But if a U.S. president, any U.S. president, is exhibiting abnormal behavior, the whole world deserves to know.

[enki23]

12. i quizzed my gf over the ethics codes for a whole semester...

i don't remember it all that well, but in this case... i'd guess it's a grey area at best. anyone qualified to actually give a diagnosis would be *extremely* unethical to broadcast it. anyone broadcasting it is almost certainly not at all qualified to make it.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Ding. Ding. Ding.

I agree completely. It would be extremely unethical to broadcast a dx and most certainly a violation of HIPAA.

[enki23]

21. of course, it's a silly question in the first place

as it's *completely* certain that the asshole in question has insufficient basis (to say the least) upon which which to build his "diagnoses." he's not really a psychologist, and the people aren't his patients. it's all just a silly little game.

if i had any say in the matter, i'd send him and dr. phil, and the rest of the tv "psychologists" (and "profilers," and "psychoanalysts") to their most deserving personal hell: permanent obscurity.

[Midlodemocrat]

25. Well, I have to admit

sheepishly, albeit, that I do watch some of the tv psychobabblers pontificate because I find it sort of funny. A lot of the time, their tactics are absurd....but it makes for good tv.

[tigereye]

45. oddly enough, sometimes Dr. Phil says stuff that makes a lot

of sense, compared to some of the other folks who presume to give advice on TV and elsewhere. And he did at one time, have the credentials to back it up.

(insert Dr. Laura comment here....) ;)

[Yupster]

51. We could make them all call Dr Laura

and she could straighten them out over the phone.

[Yupster]

50. enki - I think you have it exactly right

I'm a stockbroker, and a while back someone was looking for some investment advice in a pretty complicated situation, and I posted almost exactly the same thing you said.

It is very unethical (actually a firing offense) for someone in my profession to give investment advice to individuals over the internet, without knowing an awful ot about the person and their stuation. Tons of people were posting their opinion of the person's situation.

Much of the information was just 180 degrees wrong.

I told the person that anyone in the business would stay far away from giving internet advice on her problem without meeting her, so she needed to take into account that the info she was getting was from people not in the industry.

The people who were talking didn't know and the people who did know would know better than to talk.

[Selatius]

14. Is it ethical? That's very debatable.

My only position is this: I'm no psychiatrist, and I will never even try to psychoanalyze anyone because it's out of my league, but for people who do have that ability, I would say the decision to analyze or to not analyze rests with each individual making such a decision. Naturally, some will, and others won't.

[depakid]

19. What are you talking about?

It's not like someone sat down and had therapy with the guy.

So, if a psychiatrist says "so and so is exhibiting symptoms of ______" you think there's an ethical issue? That's like claiming a lawyer can't say someone's acting illegally.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. It's like the whole Frist/Schiavo fiasco.

I think that is the comparison BurtWorm is making; at least that is what I drew from this thread.

[BurtWorm]

23. There's an issue of confidentiality in psychiatry.

Making public diagnoses is a kind of breach of that ethic, even if they're unsolicited. I think especially when they're unsolicited. What the psychiatrist does in such an instance is what a lot of the rest of us do when we say Bush is a nut or a sociopath--but the psychiatrist is actually using his or her position to claim authority. I think it diminishes the authority of psychiatry in general when it's abused that way. As I said in my first post, it demonstrates a contempt the psychiatrist feels for mental illness when the psychiatrist uses a diagnosis of mental illness to argue against the quality of a public figure.

[depakid]

30. There's no issue of confidentiality

unless you've actually seen the psychiatrist on a professional basis. They're just as entitled as anyone else to venture an opinion based on someone's observable behavior.

Now, if it's a psychiatrist testifying in a court case who's never interviewed a patient- and is offering a professional opinion, that's another matter. Then ethics can (and should come into play).

[BurtWorm]

32. There's a reason why pyschiatrists keep confidentiality with patients

that has precisely to do with the effects publicizing a psychiatrist's diagnosis would have on the patient. In these cases, the "patients" don't have the same right because they're not really patients?

[depakid]

38. Psychiatrists who testify in court publicize disgnoses all the time

as a matter of public record. Although they don't typically write about patients by name, at times they will, given a waiver or other extenuating circumstances, that's why you see books about specific cases.

Bottom line, if you're not a patient, then a psychiatrist can make pretty much any observations he or she wants, without any ethical concerns. On the other hand, if the doc makes stupid statements (like Krauthammer does) then it reflects poorly on their reputation. Not that Krauthammer has any professional reputation to worry about.

[Benhurst]

41. ...

:thumbsup:

[Batgirl]

28. one thing about the Frist/Schaivo deal

As a senator, Frist was in a position to weild political influence over Terry Schaivo's medical treatment, and in fact that's what he was actually trying to do when he made his outlandish "diagnosis."

I think that's different than someone writing an opinion piece, and using their psychiatric background to try to explain the ever-increasing weirdness we see going on with Bush. I think most of us citizens are struggling to understand the situation we find ourselves in, and a case can be made that in order to do that, we need to understand Bush's underlying motivations.

Consider the things that are being reported about him, including the latest about governing in "a bubble", Then there are those things we can observe ourselves -- and not just his increasingly messed up speech problems and his physical appearance. His performance yesterday, and the grandiose visual presentation (grandiose really doesn't do it justice) have now become so over-the-top that it's past the point of just pissing off his critics. It's entered the realm where mental or emotional illness can legitimately be speculated on, and not as a joke.

I'm grateful for anything that helps me make sense of this surreal nightmare. I don't think the most powerful man in the world is exempt from this kind of speculation. For one thing, it's practically guaranteed he'll never, ever be burdened with hearing about it. Criticism isn't allowed to penetrate the bubble.

[BurtWorm]

29. That's a very well-reasoned counter argument.

:toast:

I've got to think about it.

[Batgirl]

31. thanks, I also think it's a legitimate question for you to ask

and admirable that you're capable of considering the ethical aspect separately from your personal feelings about Bush.

[bluedawg12]

39. it is NOT ethical. In order to meet the criteria for a medical

diagnosis two elements of medicine are required:

1.) An in person history

2.) An in person physical examination.

Anything other than that is speculative and simply an opinion based on a review of a set of given facts.

For example, a profiler, may give an opinion about motivation but that is not a diagnosis.

A medical expert may be asked to review medical records, with out an in person examination, but then that reviewer could only speculate on the facts of the case and may provide an opinion as to whether or not the facts support the diagnosis, with in a reasonbale degree of medical certainty, but the reviewer could not state based on a medical record review alone what the actual diagnosis was.

Likewise, it is not possible to review a video tape of a brain injured patient and comment with the specific use of the word: diagnosis.

The word "diagnosis" is pretty sacred in medicine, every *ss hole in the world has an opinion, some may have actually earned an MD degree, but they can't diagnose with out the basics.

It is ethical to say, " based on the behaviors I have observed, so and so, has features consistent with...." again, speculation, but never ever use the word diagnosis sight unseen.

Call me old fashioned, but that's how medicine works...the rest is bull shit.

[bluedawg12]

42. Here is an example for Dx: depression.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000515/practice.html

Diagnosis
Major depression is diagnosed on the basis of a careful clinical interview and mental status examination. According to the AMA council, considerable evidence suggests that such an interview is comparable in sensitivity and specificity to many radiologic and laboratory tests that are commonly used in medicine. The standard diagnostic approach generally includes the use of criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV).

[marions ghost]

62. I don't think any intelligent person

would take Justin Frank's opinion to be a diagnosis. I think they would view it as expert opinion. Probably nobody would have a problem with this matter being explored if Bush were no longer in office.

Krauthammer is free to say what he likes, and Justin Frank is free to say what he likes. I would not prefer that either of them censor themselves based on a standard of doctor/patient relationship that is not relevant to this situation. There IS no doctor/patient relationship in these instances. Public figures must put up with all kinds of probing analyses of their behavior and fitness for office.

As Batgirl pointed out above--we can SEE the president's behavior is strange ourselves. If we can't talk about it we're all gonna be crazy. Validation for what we see is important to our mental health as a nation.

[BurtWorm]

63. Fair enough.

Of course they're free to say what they wish.

But psychiatrists are medical doctors. They really ought to be bound by professional ethics, don't you think? Did you notice what the participants in this thread who actually work in the field said? They agree with me that pretending to diagnose (and I find it hard to believe Frank did not intend us to read a book called "Bush on the Couch" as a diagnosis) someone you haven't actually met with is unethical. It isn't just bad for Bush--who cares what's good or bad for Bush!--but for the integrity of the profession.

On the other hand, it is a good point that those of us who see Bush as sick might need validation. Of course we get that from each other all the time, don't we? Do we really need a psychiatrist to tell us Bush is a loon?

[marions ghost]

64. sample size here at DU isnt big enough--

you'd have to poll a large number of psychiatrists to get enough opinions to draw any conclusions. The person I discussed it with who is a mental health professional has no problem with this kind of speculation presented as such.

I don't think this reflects badly on the "integrity of the profession" whatsoever. Rather I think it illustrates the importance of the profession. It's important for an informed public to figure out exactly what kind of 'loon' the President is (and why he chooses loons for company). The more educated the public is about general patterns of human behavior, perhaps the less they will succumb to mass control techniques and domination by pathological personalities. --I want to KNOW exactly how the Bush administration got half the people in this country goose-stepping and foaming at the mouth to invade Iraq, for example. Part of the answer has to do with the cult of personality. So we must look at the Bush/Rovian mentality. We live in a society where people look to experts to define difficult subjects and provide analyses.

Where is the intersection between the methods of clinical psychiatry and the needs of the electorate to know the truth of the mentalities they have elected to the highest offices (which touches the realm of social psychology)? I use "mentality" in the collective sense in that Bush has surrounded himself with like minds. It seems to me that we (victims of abuse of power) need all the information we can get about how this happened, if we are to prevent it in future.

[bluedawg12]

65. The intersection of clinical psychiatry and the need of the

electorate to know " the truth" about the mental status will not come from arms length speculation.

While shrub is...well, weird, we will learn nothing but speculation from anyone except a professional who might examine him, and that person would be bound by confidentiality.

You could poll all of the psychiatrists in the nation, but unless they actually examine him, or anyone else, it's merely an educated guess.

I just don't think medicine is a parlor trick.

I resist the Stalinist tendency to label those in society with whom we disagree as "deviants". That's a dangerous game to play.

I greatly resent it when that hack Krauthammercon does it.

As far as the other book, on shrub, I don't know enough about it to say if it's presented as speculation or if it is meant to be a serious psychiatric analysis of the behavior of a public figure with out anything other than arms length observation.

Again, we can identify his behavior, we can comment on his behavior, we can speculate it's etiology, meaning, and even speculate on it's similarities to various pathologies, but no can claim to diagnose him with out examining him.


it was stupid when Dr. Bill Faust tried it with schiavo and it's ridiculous when Krauathammercon does it.

[marions ghost]

69. Justin Frank does not claim to diagnose...

I don't understand why everyone is hung up on this being a diagnosis.
Frank is a very credible speaker, hardly some kind of crank, and I suggest actually reading what he's written before judging him. He presents his thoughts as speculation, as educated opinion, based on observations of behavior and the recorded utterings of our Fearful Leader. I think when our leaders are deviants, it's important to
recognise and understand what their pathology is. Tyrants are usually psychoanalyzed from afar.

A reviewer on Amazon.com wrote this about the ethics question:
"This is a misunderstanding of psychotherapy. Is it unethical to write a psychobiography of someone you haven't treated? Absolutely not. Freud wrote about Leonardo da Vinci, Moses, and others. The American Political Science Association has a "political psychology" caucus with scholars who write almost exclusively psychological biographies of political figures."

[Maat]

71. That was a well-written post.

I agree.

[sandnsea]

40. Bush Syndrome in the DSM-VIII?

I don't think "Bush Syndrome" is an actual diagnosis. I think his view is as valid as anybody else's and he has a right to bring his expertise to the debate.

[tigereye]

47. there is no Bush Syndrome

[Neil Lisst]

43. I don't believe shrinks can competently evaluate a subject ...

... merely by watching them, although they could learn a lot. But do we really need shrinks to understand the Bush body language, his lack of curiosity, his lack of language skills, his lack of intelligence?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. My personal feeling is it's no more right for Frank to do this, without

having examined/interviewed Bush himself, and pass it off as a diagnosis, than it is for Frist to diagnose Schiavo from video.

[Bucky]

48. It's ethical when they diagnose Bush as nuts but not when they do it to us

I'll have to refine the logic of my argument later. For now, just trust me on this one.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

53. I think it's sort of unprofessional - but Bush isn't THEIR client so it's

not horrible.

[Telly Savalas]

54. Charles Krauthammer suffers from borderline personality disorder

In conjunction with his meglomaniacal tendencies, this disorder makes him a deeply disturbed individual badly in need of professional help.

Am I being unethical for posting this?

[BurtWorm]

55. Are you a psychiatrist?

[Telly Savalas]

58. Whoops.

See post 56. It was meant to be in response to your post.

[Telly Savalas]

56. No.

But Charles Krauthammer's more famous for his expertise in talking out his ass than in psychiatry, so I don't really think his status as a psychiatrist is relevant.

[BurtWorm]

59. The point is, he shamelessly exploits his psychiatric training

when "diagnosing" people he disagrees with, most notably when they're Democratic candidates for president. He is talking out his ass, as usual. That's why his appeal to his own authority as a trained psychiatrist is so dangerous.

[Neil Lisst]

66. Anyone who believes him already has their head up their azz ...

... so far it doesn't matter.

[No Exit]

68. It would be interesting to know what took him out of the practice of

psychiatry and into fulltime neocon advocacy.

I'm guessing it was some mundane reason like "Wow, I can really clean up with this pontificating-in-the-propaganda-mill bit!"

But there may be a more sinister reason. I get the feeling that his advocacy of the neocon cause is so fervent that it's become like a religious belief to him.

This makes him about as credible as Pat Robertson.

[Neil Lisst]

73. I watch those guys, but only to know what the wackies are saying

Krauthammer, Kondracke, Barnes, and Liasson - Fox Whores One and All!!

[upi402]

57. yes, or stay in private life

public figures pay a big price for their ego feed

:nopity:

[BurtWorm]

72. It's really not Bush I'm worried about.

Or any public figure for that matter. It's the profession of psychiatry that's an issue here and whether or not making diagnoses without actually meeting with the "patient" is good for the integrity of the profession or, more to the point, for the people it's supposed to help. I don't think it is.