1) Next time, send a PM.

2) Politicians are professional con men, Noah.

1) No, I don't think I will. Next time YOU refrain from answering a question clearly posed to someone else.

2) No, they are not.

The Mayo Clinic's description *might* fit Trump, that's not what's in question. What's in question (most immediately anyway) is your ability, as a layperson, to appropriately and accurately apply that description in a meaningful and credible way. Or anyone else in this thread, including me, for that matter ;).

You are ignoring all the links to professionals' opinions and acting as if only a bunch of lay persons on the internet are applying the diagnostic criteria.

As for "*might* fit": :sdl:

That's adorable.

The overarching point is that nobody in this thread needed a psychological/psychiatric professional’s opinion; it has changed nothing. Nobody’s mind has been changed and nothing at all can legally come of it. It is an ethical violation and a deviation from professional standards. So what is the point in violating professional ethics and standards?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I highlighted the part you refuse to admit is not a universal opinion among professionals and that your only evidence it is universal is something you read on the internet.:cool:

If they are able to accurately diagnose someone from afar, then they are certainly not allowed to disclose medical information publicly.

Non-sequitur.

Says who? Trump is not their patient. They have no professional obligation to him. They have obtained no personal information from him. When shrinks assess Trump based on his observed words and behavior, they are doing the same thing they routinely do when they discuss what motivated Sirhan Sirhan, Charlie Manson or the latest mass shooter. They might be right or they might be wrong; nothing requires them to remain silent.

Sorry, that's not how patient confidentiality works. Confidentiality laws have a limited scope. One is prevented from disclosing things one knows about a patient that one learned in the patient-provider role.

One is not prevented from disclosing anything that was learned outside of the patient-provider role, nor is one prevented from giving one's professional opinion about information outside of the patient-provider role.

never mind

In order to render a diagnosis, there would have to be a Doctor/Patient relationship.

Topic 3.4.7 of the APA Commentary on Ethics in Practice

That's just something you read on the Internet. You'd have to be at least a Nurse Practitioner, to properly interpret what the APA really means (protip: the APA really means you can do whatever you want, no problem).

Yes. Yes, that's EXACTLY what we're all saying and have been saying ALL. ALONG. The APA says you can do whatever you want.

The only question remains, how come it took you this long to figure it out?

You're just repeating crap from the beginning of the thread.

I have a right to say anything I want about a person's medical condition as long as I didn't learn said information in the course of my job.

If my neighbor told me they had heart surgery and it comes up in a discussion with another neighbor, just because I'm a health care provider doesn't have any legal impact on that discussion at all.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:


If someone gets it right about what an APA position statement means, they don't have to have any credentials. But if they get it wrong, well, why is that? It's because they don't have the requisite broader understanding required to understand the significance and application of an APA position statement.

For example, believing the position statement is dogma, that would be incorrect.

“Saying anything you want” ≠ rendering a diagnosis.

Is there a quote somewhere where someone said it did? :rolleyes:

All. Over. This. Thread.

The entire premise of the Yale group's pronouncement is that, contra the clear ethical guidelines of their professional standards organization, they can and should say whatever they want. Including remote diagnosis of a public figure without their consent, and advocating the removal of an elected official on the strength of their remote diagnosis.

Says the guy who also says Trump is perfectly normal. No, their entire premise is directly stated: Their professional opinion is that Trump is mentally ill, and having a president who is mentally ill is a dangerous situation. The premise of the rebuttals seems to be that the APA is the final authority on ethics, and if they say their members aren't allowed to talk about Trump's obvious mental health issues, then we're all obliged to ignore that danger. It's almost comical that you accuse them of operating under a political bias.

Were you just changing the subject here?

Isn't diagnosis part of the job, though?

I'd be very concerned about a medical professional who was diagnosing people without doing their job.

I will agree with you here. However, that you have the right to say something does not have anything to do with the validity of what you say, which is the core of the issue here.

I don't know where you see a contradiction or a subject change there.

I don't need a patient-provider relationship in order to "have a right to say anything I want about a person's medical condition as long as I didn't learn said information in the course of my job."

Anything I want doesn't equal a diagnosis, it includes my opinion on a diagnosis.

Yawn...

Why do you continue to insist on challenging my professional opinion when the thread is about a number of highly qualified psychiatrists' opinions?

In order to render a diagnosis, there would have to be a Doctor/Patient relationship. Your opinion on what these psychiatrists did has nothing to do with a diagnosis. There is no diagnosis.

With this in mind, could you please peek at what I've re-quoted above, and explain what your right to say what you want has to do with anything Drewbot posted. I am not following your argument here.

You don't understand the definition of patient/provider relationship.

The two have to enter into a contract of some kind. I don't have a patient provider relationship with Jeffrey Dahmer if I were to study his mental illness and render my opinion of his dianosis.

Who entered into a contract with Donald Trump and rendered the "diagnosis" on which are you are commenting?

:boggled:

No one. There is no patient/provider relationship.

So you agree. No diagnosis.

Again, no one is challenging your right to say what you want, so I really do not understand your non-sequitur to Drewbot's post.

I apologize that we are talking past each other, but I tried to make it as easy as possible with the requoting and the highlighting.

:crazy:

Yes there is a diagnosis: Trump has a pathologic NPD (some refer to it as a malignant NPD)

No there is no patient provider relationship. No one has been hired to diagnose or treat Trump.

Just because I am a medical provider doesn't establish patient confidentiality in regards to medical information. Confidentiality laws don't apply to all forms of medical information including professional opinions.

I'm not sure what is so difficult about this.

long boring summary about an internet misunderstanding
 

The APA says no patient provider relationship = no diagnosis.
You say there is a diagnosis, except when you say that no patient/doctor relationship means no diagnosis.

That's the crux of the thread. No one anywhere is questioning anyone's right to say anything. There just isn't a diagnosis in this case.

OK, I see the problem.

Read the rest of the thread. That is not a unanimous opinion.

Actually what they say is one needs an in-person exam. Not only is that not a unanimous opinion, I cited one source that said in many cases the public record was better than an in-person exam because patients don't always show their natural selves to the provider

Yes, lots of people in the thread are claiming a professional cannot weigh in as it wouldn't be ethical. That also has been challenged and is not a unanimous opinion.

BTW, just as general info, technically one can have an in-person exam and still not have a patient/provider relationship. For example, the employee health provider has a relationship with the employer, not the employee.

The employee-patient then has a relationship with the employer. It's a legal technicality.

Legal technicalities make a poor cover for ethical obligations.

The existence of challenges and disagreement does not imply that such are valid. What you need to do is present the actual data that indicates the disagreement is on solid scientific ground.

“In many cases the public record was better than an in-person exam” is a testable claim. Has it been tested? If not, it is a claim without evidence. Medicine and psychology is not practiced based upon claims without evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't need to prove anything to you. Multiple persons with volumes more education, experience and credentials publicly spoke up about Trump's blatantly obvious diagnosis and spelled out their reasoning for challenging the two rules in question.

You have nothing on them. You are siding with the organizations that have the position statements. Where's your evidence? Where's your expertise?

Did you contact those organizations and ask them to respond to the professional challenge?

Do you have evidence that said in-person exam is necessary? Studies? Research?

No, all you have is a professional organization that has no legal authority to dictate practice. In fact when it was suggested one might challenge the professionals' public statements by complaining to the licensing board, it was noted that would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Thank you for your patience. Probably out of frustration, I used hyperbole there. Speaking for myself, I am not claiming that professionals cannot weigh in. Merely that they are not practicing their specialty when they do so.

I see that, but you'd be wrong.

The professionals that came out and publicly diagnosed Trump as having pathologic narcissism were most certainly putting their credentials behind their assertions.

Your definition of "practicing their speciality" is another place we are not in agreement on.

If I teach a class on infectious disease I am practicing my specialty. I don't need to be diagnosing a patient. If a psychiatrist writes a book on Jeffry Dahmer, that doc is practicing their specialty.

The point being, 'practicing' is not limited to patient/provider interactions.