International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

xjx388 11th February 2020 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986118)
I will concede that Gilligan was talking about violence. He also gives a good case for his fear that Trump exhibits tendencies toward it just before the quote you provided:

I don't know that it's a good case. Dr. Gilligan is an expert in violence, an expertise gained by his years of working with violent criminals. Trump is catagorically different from the type of patient Dr. Gilligan has worked with. He hasn't done any research on people like Trump, he hasn't worked with patients like Trump and he certainly hasn't ever worked with Trump himself.

Let's take the first item in the list: Trump reportedly asked why we couldn't use nukes if we had them. This story is solely sourced to an unnamed source NBC's Joe Scarborough spoke to before Trump was elected:

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
ďSeveral months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why canít we use them,Ē Scarborough said on his ďMorning JoeĒ program.

That does not sound to me like ample evidence to base a sound professional opinion on. It is, however, perfectly fine for a concerned citizen to speak out -there's no need to invoke the medical profession to do so.

Quote:

I agree partly. Yes, each patient must be assessed individually, but you are minimizing the use of the DSM as a diagnostic tool. That checklist was created after input from many mental health professionals after years of research.
I'm not minimizing it; I'm putting it in it's proper place -it's a tool for professionals to use as a part of arriving at a diagnosis. One tool of many that includes semi-structured interviews, review of medical records, etc. When used as part of a complete assessment it's a well validated tool. When it's used as the only thing you are looking at, not so much.

Quote:

That alleged motivation by the authors is an opinion, not a fact. They are not "attacking politicians". They are concerned with the danger they believe Trump poses.
It's criticism of a politician in order to convince people to remove that politician from office. It is by it's very nature a political attack.

xjx388 11th February 2020 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12986311)
Then quote him, don't simply paraphrase him.

Simple!

Been done many times in the thread. Most recently about 3 or 4 posts up.
Quote:

Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't agree with it.
You don't agree with the Goldwater rule? That's fine. Your disagreement with the rule doesn't change the fact that it's a rule and that the Yale Group is in violation of it. The rule has been challenged and upheld by the APA so that's the relevant thing here.
Quote:

The knowledge that professional psychiatrists think Trump is dangerously mentally ill.
That's a mere restatement of terms. What is gained by such knowledge? What are we supposed to do with that?
Quote:

What utter rubbish.
What useful information do you derive from a diagnosis? Are you going to treat the President?

Cabbage 11th February 2020 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986361)
Been done many times in the thread. Most recently about 3 or 4 posts up.


I'll grant you that he's concerned with dangerous violence tendencies in Trump. In no way does that imply that he has no other concerns (like the ones I mentioned).


Quote:

You don't agree with the Goldwater rule? That's fine. Your disagreement with the rule doesn't change the fact that it's a rule and that the Yale Group is in violation of it. The rule has been challenged and upheld by the APA so that's the relevant thing here.
'K. On the other hand, that's irrelevant to the question of what I consider (un)ethical. But thanks for trying.

Quote:

That's a mere restatement of terms. What is gained by such knowledge? What are we supposed to do with that?
Haven't we been through this aspect of the discussion before? As long as there is the potential for more Americans to become aware of the danger of Trump, I consider that a gain.


Quote:

What useful information do you derive from a diagnosis?

For examples: If a patient receives a diagnosis that he has a poor heart, he has the useful information that he should go easier in his lifestyle: Eat more healthy. Moderate physical activity.

If someone close to me is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, the mere fact of that useful information allows me to be more cautious and aware around the individual with the correlation for violent behavior.

Seriously, I can't believe you need to ask this question. Really.

Quote:

Are you going to treat the President?

Do you think I should? Someone certainly should, and not one of his typical Kiss-Ass-Quacks, neither.

I'll get right on it, if you need me to.

Skeptic Ginger 11th February 2020 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986136)
Remember when fuelair would regularly go off on these graphically violent sado-sexual revenge fantasies? And no amount of remonstration or sanction could convince him to moderate that behavior?

Did you think he really had a dangerous mental illness, and might explode into actual violence at any moment? ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986236)
One allegation, thirty years ago, later withdrawn. Serious enough in its own right, but definitely not an escalating trend of violent outbursts by President Trump.

I don't suppose you see the contradiction there.

Your analogy is a fail.

Your example of fuelair has nothing in common with the issues here.

xjx388 11th February 2020 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12986452)
I'll grant you that he's concerned with dangerous violence tendencies in Trump. In no way does that imply that he has no other concerns (like the ones I mentioned).

The only concerns we are ...uh, concerned with are those that he has actually made a part of his professional opinion.

Quote:

'K. On the other hand, that's irrelevant to the question of what I consider (un)ethical. But thanks for trying.
No problem. The answer to the question I asked, it seems, is: ďYes they breached the ethical code, but Iím ok with that.Ē

And thatís the difference between us. I donít know why you think that way because you havenít told me. I can only say that I strongly disagree because adhering to an ethical code is fundamental to ensuring good practice of medicine. If a professional breaches ethics, how can we be sure they are actually acting professionally? Iím sure you would have a problem with ethical breaches in most other medical contexts (Doctors dating patients? Breaking confidentiality? Advocating unproven treatments?), so Iím not sure what makes this different. Or maybe you donít think ethics in medicine is a big deal?


Haven't we been through this aspect of the discussion before? As long as there is the potential for more Americans to become aware of the danger of Trump, I consider that a gain.











Quote:

For examples: If a patient receives a diagnosis that he has a poor heart, he has the useful information that he should go easier in his lifestyle: Eat more healthy. Moderate physical activity.



If someone close to me is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, the mere fact of that useful information allows me to be more cautious and aware around the individual with the correlation for violent behavior.
There, you are talking about situations where someone has been personally diagnosed in the traditional way by a professional who has spent time assessing the person and going through the diagnostic process. That isnít what we are talking about here. In those situations, a diagnosis is useful for treatment.

And as to your second example, the diagnosis itself isnít telling you anything, if they really are close to you. Youíve already observed their behaviors and know that you have to be wary. The diagnosis will facilitate their treatment and thatís about it.

Youíve observed Trump. You already came to a conclusion about him before the Yale Group existed. Iím quite sure you didnít vote for him. What did the Yale Group tell you that fundamentally changed your view of him?


Quote:

Seriously, I can't believe you need to ask this question. Really.
Uh...because in order to have a conversation I need to find out what you think and the best way to do that is ask?



Quote:

Do you think I should? Someone certainly should, and not one of his typical Kiss-Ass-Quacks, neither.



I'll get right on it, if you need me to.
Exactly, you arenít treating him so thereís no useful information in a diagnosis for you.

Stacyhs 12th February 2020 12:48 AM

We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.

Skeptic Ginger 12th February 2020 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986639)
We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.

Nominated. :thumbsup:

The Great Zaganza 12th February 2020 02:28 AM

People being selected for positions that require decision making of vast consequence are not discriminated against for having mental illnesses; they are discriminated for not being exceptional at dealing with stress, distraction, lack of information and emotional impact.

It is utterly bizarre to claim that we cannot ask more of the President in terms of competency for the job than we could for a Wallmart worker stacking shelves.

xjx388 12th February 2020 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12986639)
We've gone round and round and round on this issue ad nauseam. I don't really give a **** about the Goldwater rule, whether or not Lee's book is 'ethical', whether or not Trump has been seen in person by a mental health professional, whether he is going to be violent or whether he wears pink undies with lace. I do know what I've seen of the man and what his behavior leads me to conclude is that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is not stable. He is an extreme narcissist who can never, ever admit he's wrong, thinks he's above the law, who never learns because he thinks he knows better than anyone else, who has the emotional maturity of a child, is a bully and pathological liar. That makes him unfit to hold the most powerful position in the world. People here can continue to nit pick about semantics and get all huffy about 'ethics' till the cows come home. It doesn't change what I see and why over 70,000 mental health officials are so concerned about that they signed a petition warning about how dangerous he is.



I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isnít true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

Iím getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons weíve gone round and round about. I canít understand why so many here fight me on that point.

xjx388 12th February 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12986683)
People being selected for positions that require decision making of vast consequence are not discriminated against for having mental illnesses; they are discriminated for not being exceptional at dealing with stress, distraction, lack of information and emotional impact.

If that were true, Trump wouldnít have been elected.

Quote:

It is utterly bizarre to claim that we cannot ask more of the President in terms of competency for the job than we could for a Wallmart worker stacking shelves.
You are right, it would be bizarre for someone to make that claim.

3point14 12th February 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986358)
It's criticism of a politician in order to convince people to remove that politician from office. It is by it's very nature a political attack.

In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

theprestige 12th February 2020 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986960)
In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

It would make sense, for one thing.

3point14 12th February 2020 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986968)
It would make sense, for one thing.

That's subjective.

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.

xjx388 12th February 2020 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986960)
In what way would it look different if it wasn't politically motivated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986972)
That's subjective.

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.

The truth is, this particular situation would not look at all different if it were a sincere concern. It's the inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.

It's kind of like when a doctor recommends a treatment that doesn't have good science behind it. Is the doctor recommending it because he truly believes in the treatment or because he makes money off of it? The patient isn't equipped to tell the difference.

However, I can see a couple of scenarios in which mental health professionals can and should speak out:

1)They speak as citizens without any of the trappings of their profession. Sure, their expertise and experience will inform what they say, but they should leave out any mention of diagnosis or dangerous mental illness. Include a clear disclaimer -something like, "I've never met him and I'm not diagnosing him but I have to speak out as a citizen . . ." Dr. Francis almost hits the mark but his "He's not mentally ill; he's the worst person ever," schtick is a bit over the top.

2)His actual therapist breaches confidentiality because Trump has spoken in session about his desire to nuke NK/Syria/wherever, his desire to purge certain ethnicities, a threat to shoot someone on 5th Avenue to see if he still has support, etc -actual specific dangers. I could see other professionals rallying in support. Then it would be based on sound medical practice and invoke a true Duty to Warn as spelled out by law.

3point14 12th February 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987008)
The truth is, this particular situation would not look at all different if it were a sincere concern. It's the inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.

Do you count yourself as one of the 'lay audience' that you mention?

Cabbage 12th February 2020 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12986968)
It would make sense, for one thing.


It doesn't make sense to you that Trump just might be mentally ill?????

theprestige 12th February 2020 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12986972)
That's subjective.

You're asking what would convince me it isn't political. Obviously that's a question that can only be answered by my subjective judgement.

For example, the "duty to warn" argument doesn't make sense to me in this context. The real "duty to warn" is a narrowly-scoped legal exception to the legal requirement for medical confidentiality. It applies when a medical professional has reason to believe their patient poses an imminent risk to themselves or others. It's so that law enforcement can act immediately to prevent tragedy.

It doesn't make sense here. It's inappropriate here. In my opinion, it's being used to try to paper over the ethical breach of going public with what should be confidential patient information. There is no imminent danger. There is no public safety objective that depends on revealing this information for immediate police action.

Either the Yale group doesn't know what the duty to warn actually is, in which case they're bad doctors; or they do know, but are misusing it here on purpose, which makes them evil doctors.

That's just one example. The call for a 25th Amendment solution, the citation of the "what good are nukes" anecdote as medical evidence, and others, all signal that this is an unserious and unethical effort.

Quote:

Is there anything at all that the accusers could say that would convince you and XJ that this is not political?

I only ask, because if there isn't, then any discussion with either of you is pointless.
These particular accusers? Probably not. I don't think they have standing to make the kinds of medical accusations they're making.

If a doctor who was actually treating Trump believed the president posed an imminent risk to himself and others, consistent with the actual letter and spirit of the duty to warn, and issued that warning directly to the Secret Service, I'd probably take it seriously.

---

I'd take the Yale group more seriously if, instead of a book, they'd published peer-reviewed articles citing specific data sets and methodologies for their novel techniques of remote diagnosis.

xjx388 12th February 2020 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12987033)
Do you count yourself as one of the 'lay audience' that you mention?

Of course. And I don't know for sure if it's a sincere concern or a political attack. It looks and sounds, to my eyes and ears, like a political attack, the same kinds of things being said in other threads and media pundit opinion pieces, just with a long white coat lending it more gravitas.

I do know, because of my position and research on the subject, that medical ethics and standards of practice are important to the profession. I also know that the professionals here aren't following either. That leans me more to the political attack side than the sober analysis side.

3point14 12th February 2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12987054)
You're asking what would convince me it isn't political. Obviously that's a question that can only be answered by my subjective judgement.

Thanks.

That leaves me believing you're utterly unconvincable. regardless of any current or new evidence.

3point14 12th February 2020 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987093)
Of course.


Then how are you making your judgement? If you are, self confessedly one of the lay audience, about which you say this:


Quote:

inability of the lay audience to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern that is a core problem.
How are you managing to discern the difference between a sincere concern and a political attack when you put yourself in the group of people that you say are unable to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern?

theprestige 12th February 2020 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12987036)
It doesn't make sense to you that Trump just might be mentally ill?????

This has now been addressed.

Bob001 12th February 2020 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987093)
.....
I do know, because of my position and research on the subject, that medical ethics and standards of practice are important to the profession. I also know that the professionals here aren't following either. That leans me more to the political attack side than the sober analysis side.


You don't seem willing to acknowledge that the President holds a unique position in our society and the world. He is invested with unique powers and responsibilties that touch all of our lives directly. He's no longer just a reality TV star. Anything bearing on his fitness for office is a matter of public concern.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Trump started displaying obvious signs of a stroke: slurred speech, drooping facial muscles, stumbling, maybe dragging a foot behind him, maybe keeling over during a speech. Would doctors be out of line for saying "Damn, that sure looks like he had a stroke!" Would you say "You're not his doctor! Keep your mouth shut!" Would you say we're supposed to pretend we can't see what's in front of our eyes? His obvious psychiatric deficits are just no different.

theprestige 12th February 2020 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12987130)
Thanks.

That leaves me believing you're utterly unconvincable. regardless of any current or new evidence.

I actually cited evidence that would change my mind.

I don't understand your complaint.

Have you objectively determined that the Yale group isn't politically motivated? What evidence would cause you to reconsider?

xjx388 12th February 2020 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12987134)
Then how are you making your judgement? If you are, self confessedly one of the lay audience, about which you say this:

How are you managing to discern the difference between a sincere concern and a political attack when you put yourself in the group of people that you say are unable to tell the difference between a political attack and a sincere concern?

I anticipated this response and I answered it in advance in that same post. In short, I can't determine the difference and that's a big problem with these kinds of "I'm an expert and I say this," pronouncements.

Skeptic Ginger 12th February 2020 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12987130)
Thanks.

That leaves me believing you're utterly unconvincable. regardless of any current or new evidence.

That's obvious with the suggestion alone that one cannot tell if this is political or not. It's ludicrous.

It's like seeing a dog and saying you aren't sure if it's a cat and for political reasons people are calling it a dog.

Skeptic Ginger 12th February 2020 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12987334)
I anticipated this response and I answered it in advance in that same post. In short, I can't determine the difference and that's a big problem with these kinds of "I'm an expert and I say this," pronouncements.

You can't tell the difference? :dl:

See my above post.

xjx388 12th February 2020 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12987382)
That's obvious with the suggestion alone that one cannot tell if this is political or not. It's ludicrous.



It's like seeing a dog and saying you aren't sure if it's a cat and for political reasons people are calling it a dog.



Thatís not it at all. The analogy is ludicrous. Itís like you arenít listening to what Iím actually saying.

You do admit that professionals are humans with bias, yes?

You do admit that a human with mental illness is still a human, yes?

So we have professionals saying a human they have never met has something clinically wrong with their mind, which they canít see. I canít tell if they are saying that on the basis of their bias or on the basis of a sincere concern.

I already know Trump is an incompetent buffoon.

Stacyhs 13th February 2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986926)
I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isnít true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

Iím getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons weíve gone round and round about. I canít understand why so many here fight me on that point.

Of course people want ethics in medicine, but you are insisting that the Goldwater Rule is somehow the gold standard of ethics in medicine which much never be breached. It ain't. Rules are not absolute and there are always exceptions depending on circumstances. We've never had a president so blatantly exhibit, in public and on almost a daily basis, his disconnect from reality and his paranoia by repeating proven falsehoods of "deep state" conspiracies against him, his out of control lying and stunted emotional development.

Quote:

Psychologists and commentators from all ideological camps early converged on a label of narcissistic personality disorder as the condition that ďexplainsĒ Trumpís behavior. Among those making this assertion are more than 70,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition warning of Trump's potential dangerousness, despite longstanding professional injunctions against "diagnosing" public figures whom experts have not personally examined.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...t-donald-trump

Quote:

Many of us in the mental health community have been arguing for years that Trump should be removed because he is psychologically unfit. We posted a professional petition online stating that ďin our professional judgment Ö Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of president of the United States.Ē It garnered over 70,000 signatures and formed a professional organization, Duty To Warn, dedicated solely to this issue and has held rallies across the country.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1260781001/

jimbob 13th February 2020 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12986926)
I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isnít true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

Iím getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons weíve gone round and round about. I canít understand why so many here fight me on that point.

Because you are missing quite a bit.

The POTUS is one of a handful of people who could destroy civilisation on a whim. They also have the ability for less apocalyptic abuses of power that still damage many citizens.

Given this, if someone has sufficient evidence to form a professional opinion that the POTUS (or potential POTUS) is a danger then I'd argue it's unethical to keep quiet.

It can't be a breech of confidence, if one is basing it on publicly available information and that information is sufficient to form an opinion. Is it unethical for FBI psychological profilers to try looking at a hostage-taker's social media posts and any public statements/manifestos?

Maybe it's not surprising and you think that it's obvious that he's a danger, so saying that in someone's professional opinion, he's a danger is superfluous, but in this thread we have people saying (and I am paraphrasing) that in their layperson's opinion he's not a danger. Which, if professionals disagree and it's not a political decision but a clinical one, suggests that they are bringing something new to the table.



Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12987222)
I actually cited evidence that would change my mind.

I don't understand your complaint.

Have you objectively determined that the Yale group isn't politically motivated? What evidence would cause you to reconsider?

Well, there is plenty of evidence, and it's building up every day about Trump's mental and physical decline. I wonder whether you'd accept that his doctor had been remiss if Trump turns out to be unable to walk unaided by November or somehow misses presidential debates.

The evidence you require is a ludicrously high bar given that there are doubts about the independence of Trump's doctors (remember the medical report that Trump dictated).

xjx388 13th February 2020 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12987898)
Of course people want ethics in medicine, but you are insisting that the Goldwater Rule is somehow the gold standard of ethics in medicine which much never be breached. It ain't. Rules are not absolute and there are always exceptions depending on circumstances.

In your view, are ethical codes something professionals can choose to follow or not? Can they cherry pick which rules are gold standard rules and which are not absolute?

If so, then I'm not really sure what you think the point of ethical codes is. If not, the above makes no sense.

Yes, there are exceptions to ethical rules depending on the circumstance.

Examples:

Rule: Doctors shouldn't treat family members. Exception: In emergency cases or cases where there isn't access to another doctor. Real world: My wife has refilled my meds for me when we are out of town and I forgot to get them before we left. When she does, she documents the reason why she's doing it and sends a note to the doctor who originally prescribed them.

Rule: Doctors should not publicly talk about the diagnosis and treatment of their paitents. Exception: When the patient poses an imminent specific threat to specific people. Real world: The Tarasoff case, linked to before, which established this exception to the rules.

Rule: Doctors should obtain informed consent before initiating a treatment plan. Exceptions: 1)Emergencies, 2)When the patient specifically waives the right to informed consent and 3)When the doctor judges that informing the patient will harm them in some specific way. Real World: Incapacitated trauma victims. When a patient consents to one treatment, they often sign waivers of consent for other treatments that might arise during the original treatment.

These ethical exceptions are well covered in the various ethical codes and journals of ethics in the medical field.

The Goldwater Rule has been challenged. It has survived those challenges in the profession. Maybe it will change in the future. However, while it stands, professionals should abide by it.


Quote:

We've never had a president so blatantly exhibit, in public and on almost a daily basis, his disconnect from reality and his paranoia by repeating proven falsehoods of "deep state" conspiracies against him, his out of control lying and stunted emotional development.
That's all stuff that you yourself have observed.

xjx388 13th February 2020 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12988619)
Because you are missing quite a bit.

The POTUS is one of a handful of people who could destroy civilisation on a whim. They also have the ability for less apocalyptic abuses of power that still damage many citizens.

Given this, if someone has sufficient evidence to form a professional opinion that the POTUS (or potential POTUS) is a danger then I'd argue it's unethical to keep quiet.

That's a really big if. There is no case to be made for a Duty to Warn in the legal and ethical senses, for example. There is no standard of practice for distant diagnosis, for another.

In any case, there is no established ethical exception for "I think this guy I've never met before is dangerous." Ethics matter a great deal in medicine.

Quote:

It can't be a breech of confidence, if one is basing it on publicly available information and that information is sufficient to form an opinion. Is it unethical for FBI psychological profilers to try looking at a hostage-taker's social media posts and any public statements/manifestos?
FBI profilers aren't diagnosing anyone. They are looking at a criminal who has already done violence and looking for patterns that might help capture them or negotiate with them. There are ethical codes in Forensic Psychiatry, too.

Quote:

Maybe it's not surprising and you think that it's obvious that he's a danger, so saying that in someone's professional opinion, he's a danger is superfluous, but in this thread we have people saying (and I am paraphrasing) that in their layperson's opinion he's not a danger. Which, if professionals disagree and it's not a political decision but a clinical one, suggests that they are bringing something new to the table.
If professionals have never evaluated the subject personally, how are they arriving at a professional opinion? I don't think you can get around that one.

RecoveringYuppy 13th February 2020 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12988644)
In your view, are ethical codes something professionals can choose to follow or not? Can they cherry pick which rules are gold standard rules and which are not absolute?

I think it's obvious that ethical codes do not consist entirely of absolutes. Some of these professionals we are talking about probably belong to multiple organizations that don't even agree on the Goldwater rule.


Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12988655)
There is no case to be made for a Duty to Warn in the legal and ethical senses, for example.


And how did you decide that? Obviously some professionals disagree with you.

Skeptic Ginger 13th February 2020 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12988644)
In your view, are ethical codes something professionals can choose to follow or not? Can they cherry pick which rules are gold standard rules and which are not absolute? ....

Yes, it's called professional judgement.

xjx388 13th February 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12988685)
Yes, it's called professional judgement.

OK, it would therefore follow that, if in their professional judgement, ethical rule X is not a good rule for the circumstances, they should feel free to ignore that rule.

Having sex with patients? "In my professional judgement, there is no harm in this particular case; therefore, I shall ignore the rule."

Does that sound right to you?

RecoveringYuppy 13th February 2020 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12988717)
OK, it would therefore follow that, if in their professional judgement, ethical rule X is not a good rule for the circumstances, they should feel free to ignore that rule.

Having sex with patients? "In my professional judgement, there is no harm in this particular case; therefore, I shall ignore the rule."

Does that sound right to you?

Wow. You sure you don't want to think about that for a minute? Can't you name at least four major differences between this and what we're talking about?

Skeptic Ginger 13th February 2020 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12988717)
OK, it would therefore follow that, if in their professional judgement, ethical rule X is not a good rule for the circumstances, they should feel free to ignore that rule.

Having sex with patients? "In my professional judgement, there is no harm in this particular case; therefore, I shall ignore the rule."

Does that sound right to you?

Big giant logic FAIL.

Try again.

xjx388 13th February 2020 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 12988728)
Wow. You sure you don't want to think about that for a minute? Can't you name at least four major differences between this and what we're talking about?



Itís an ethical rule. If professionals can use professional judgement to pick and choose which situations ethical rules apply to, itís a valid comparison.

What do you see as a problem with the scenario?

RecoveringYuppy 13th February 2020 03:37 PM

Wow.

xjx388 13th February 2020 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12988732)
Big giant logic FAIL.

Try again.



See my reply above. Spell it out.

You implied that ethical rules can be cherry picked based on professional judgement. I gave an example of an ethical rule that could be circumvented by the judgement of a professional -a flawed judgement, to be sure.

How does your ďprofessional judgement ď argument account for flawed professional judgements? Couldnít the Yale Group be making a flawed professional judgement?

xjx388 13th February 2020 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 12988736)
Wow.



Iím more than willing to admit when Iíve made an error. I canít see it. Can you spell it out?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.