ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 25th April 2017, 09:18 AM   #321
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Trump's total lack of concern for the truth, his ego-centered manipulations of everyone he interacts with, his vindictiveness toward any ego injury, his apparent lack of empathy for any other human being, and his self-centered view of everything are all "disqualifying behaviors" for a President of the United States in my book (ETA: and that's before we even get to the question of whether or not he's delusional). I don't really need a psychiatrist to tell me that these behaviors (and several more that Trump exhibits) are consistent with what their manual calls narcissistic personality disorder to decide that he is unfit for office. On the one hand, you can criticize the psychiatrists for breaking a rule of a professional organization; but on the other hand, I don't see anyone even attempting to convince anyone that they are wrong.
Why is that?
Mostly because none of us are in any position to accurately assess the mental state of Donald Trump. The point is that "backseat doctoring" is wrong whether it's speculating about Clinton's supposed dementia or Trump's supposed "dangerousness." The personal opinion of a doctor that has not treated the subject is irrelevant and shouldn't be publicly stated as a professional opinion.

There's also the question of which mental illnesses should disqualify a president. In fact, there is no list of mental illnesses that would disqualify someone from office. The only qualifications for the office are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. A mentally ill person can certainly be (has been?) elected. The only recourse then is for the VP to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

You allege NPD. Is NPD disqualifying? Why? Isn't it possible for someone with NPD to be high-functioning, mostly rational and successful? Another issue involved here is that we are stigmatizing all mental illness as making someone unqualified to be President. That's simply not the case. According to this paper, a good chunk of our past leaders have exhibited signs of mental illness. If you accept the Yale panel's analysis of Trump then this paper should be right up your alley.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 09:20 AM   #322
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Have you ever heard of this thing called "taxes"?

They're used for funding things, like the brick wall on the interstate that I feel like I'm banging my head into every time I read your drivel. They also fund (and you may want to sit down here) government employees. Such as the President, Congress, and your fuhrer's family.

You excel in being wrong.
An elected official is not employee even if it makes sense for the IRS to classify them as such. They are not a polysci institution and are not there to answer our political science questions.

ETA, from a philosophical or polysci perspective we might conclude elected officials are employees, but the fact they get a W-2 won't matter.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 25th April 2017 at 09:23 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 09:29 AM   #323
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,778
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Trump's total lack of concern for the truth, his ego-centered manipulations of everyone he interacts with, his vindictiveness toward any ego injury, his apparent lack of empathy for any other human being, and his self-centered view of everything are all "disqualifying behaviors" for a President of the United States in my book
Trump's "disqualifying behaviors" were on display during the election. The voters decided they didn't care.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 09:34 AM   #324
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
If there is sufficient evidence and there is reason for the public to know. Like for example if that person is the president of the United States.
I think we disagree about what "sufficient evidence" is. I don't think observing a person during public appearances is sufficient evidence to make a valid diagnosis. These shrinks have no idea what Trump is like in his private life and have never even spoken to Trump personally or professionally. Rendering a professional opinion in this manner goes against their own professional standards of practice and ethics, making such an opinion worthless.

As for the public right to know about the President's mental/medical state, I think it's sufficient that those who work with him every day -the VP and the Cabinet- can make that judgement call on our behalf.

ETA: Further than that: How does the public know when a professional is rendering a valid medical opinion or simply making a political attack under the guise of professionalism?
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 25th April 2017 at 09:45 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:21 AM   #325
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Congratulations on your acquisition of degrees in psychotherapy. That is quite a step up from nursing. You can rightly be proud of your achievement.
First, psychotherapy has nothing to do with this tread topic. Diagnosis and therapy are two different animals.

Second, I'm board certified in family practice but even if I weren't, of course nurses need knowledge in the field of psychiatric disorders. Why wouldn't we?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:22 AM   #326
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Thanks, you have demonstrated my point for me. I would find it difficult to imagine a more unprofessional diatribe.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:24 AM   #327
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post

Diagnosis without examination is unprofessional. Full stop.
Says another person who cannot articulate just which tests or exams one would do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:28 AM   #328
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Here's a photo of a raccoon and somebody's remarks about what they think the raccoon is thinking. Does it have rabies?
Technically that's an analogy fail. Rabies is diagnosed by a viral culture.

However, certain raccoon behaviors and the prevalence of rabies in the area in raccoons would indicate if rabies vaccine was warranted for a person that had had contact with said raccoon but the raccoon was not available for testing.

So we could indeed make a presumptive diagnosis of rabies in a raccoon based on it's behavior alone without an in-person exam.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:29 AM   #329
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Someone says something obviously correct and someone else says you can't say that because of the rules. Just another day at the academy.
That boils it down nicely.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:31 AM   #330
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Much more is known about Trump than any shrink would learn from examining a patient.
Exactly. And no doubt any psychiatrist familiar with Trump would recognize his pathologic personality disorder. Not all of them would say so publicly.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:32 AM   #331
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,473
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Trump's "disqualifying behaviors" were on display during the election. The voters decided they didn't care.
Yeah, I noticed that. What's your point?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:33 AM   #332
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,336
I still want to know how one unseats a hypothetical mental president when no-one's allowed to posit that he's mental?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:38 AM   #333
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I still want to know how one unseats a hypothetical mental president when no-one's allowed to posit that he's mental?
You already have an answer. You can disagree with it, or find it lacking in efficiency for you, but the ability is there.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:39 AM   #334
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Maybe we can have a compromise on this. Psychiatrists can not, accurately, declare Trump mentally ill because he has not been diagnosed. However, we can accept their declaration that Trump is exhibiting behaviors of a mentally ill person.
That wold depend on your definition of "declare" said diagnosis. You're essentially saying if it walks/talks/looks like a duck you can only say it is exhibiting the appearance of a duck. I disagree.

Look at it a different way. You develop an hypothesis. You define the methodology (observation) of testing your hypothesis. You carry out said observations. You conclude your hypothesis was correct. You make predictions about Trump's future behavior based on the hypothesis. Your predictions are correct.

You've pretty much proved your case in as much as science 'proves' anything.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I doubt the psychiatrists are forming their opinions on partisan politics. If they did, I wonder why they never declared a POTUS mentally ill before. Trump is the first, except for maybe Reagan, who did prove to have a cognitive debilitating disease.
See the Goldwater rule.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:40 AM   #335
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,487
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That wold depend on your definition of "declare" said diagnosis. You're essentially saying if it walks/talks/looks like a duck you can only say it is exhibiting the appearance of a duck. I disagree.

Look at it a different way. You develop an hypothesis. You define the methodology (observation) of testing your hypothesis. You carry out said observations. You conclude your hypothesis was correct. You make predictions about Trump's future behavior based on the hypothesis. Your predictions are correct.

You've pretty much proved your case in as much as science 'proves' anything.

See the Goldwater rule.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:51 AM   #336
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,336
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
You already have an answer. You can disagree with it, or find it lacking in efficiency for you, but the ability is there.

Not a satisfactory one.

It very much seems like opening a box with the crowbar that's in the box.

How does one decide that a president is psychologically unfit for office if, as has been stated, merely observing his behaviour is insufficient to begin an investigation?

There must come a point at which someone's allowed to say 'Er, he's gone a bit mad, do you think we'd better do something about it' and to not have that statement invalidated with 'the doctor hasn't examined the patient, there can be no suggestion that anything is wrong with the president and to do so would be unethical'
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:54 AM   #337
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Not a satisfactory one.

It very much seems like opening a box with the crowbar that's in the box.

How does one decide that a president is psychologically unfit for office if, as has been stated, merely observing his behaviour is insufficient to begin an investigation?

There must come a point at which someone's allowed to say 'Er, he's gone a bit mad, do you think we'd better do something about it' and to not have that statement invalidated with 'the doctor hasn't examined the patient, there can be no suggestion that anything is wrong with the president and to do so would be unethical'
I guess the answer would be you judge the behavior, not the diagnosis. If the behavior is "mad" or "not mad" shouldn't change based on a diagnosis.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:59 AM   #338
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
First, psychotherapy has nothing to do with this tread topic. Diagnosis and therapy are two different animals.

Second, I'm board certified in family practice but even if I weren't, of course nurses need knowledge in the field of psychiatric disorders. Why wouldn't we?
Surely, you are professional enough to admit that your opinion of Trump's mental state, having not personally interviewed/examined him, is not worth anything in the context of coming to an actual diagnosis and that doing so publicly would be ethically wrong. Similarly, these psychiatrists are wrong.

Again, the reason why it's wrong is simple: How does the public differentiate between a profession rendering a professional opinion or a disgruntled private citizen with a medical degree using the veneer of "professionalism" to make a political attack?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:07 AM   #339
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Not a satisfactory one.

It very much seems like opening a box with the crowbar that's in the box.

How does one decide that a president is psychologically unfit for office if, as has been stated, merely observing his behaviour is insufficient to begin an investigation?

There must come a point at which someone's allowed to say 'Er, he's gone a bit mad, do you think we'd better do something about it' and to not have that statement invalidated with 'the doctor hasn't examined the patient, there can be no suggestion that anything is wrong with the president and to do so would be unethical'
This is exactly what the 25th Amendment allows for. The VP does not need an MD evaluation in order to make his own judgement and seek concurrence from the cabinet. There doesn't have to be a diagnosis.

No one has said that "merely observing his behaviour is insufficient to begin an investigation." Clearly, the VP can "begin an investigation" based on his own observations. What has been said is that a psychiatrist (or any other medical professional) should not render a professional opinion without examining the patient themselves. At the very least, if they do render a professional opinion, it shouldn't be given much weight.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:10 AM   #340
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,473
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Mostly because none of us are in any position to accurately assess the mental state of Donald Trump. The point is that "backseat doctoring" is wrong whether it's speculating about Clinton's supposed dementia or Trump's supposed "dangerousness." The personal opinion of a doctor that has not treated the subject is irrelevant and shouldn't be publicly stated as a professional opinion.
All of us are in a position to observe Trump's behavior and to compare it to the description of narcissistic personality disorder, but apparently not all of us are willing to do that objectively. If "Clinton's supposed dementia" can be documented with 1/100th as much evidence, then that absolutely would be an issue in judging her fitness for office, so if any qualified psychiatrist can make that case, then I would have expected them to do so.

I do believe the Goldwater Rule serves a useful purpose, and I definitely don't like the idea of just dropping it. But there are such things as ethical and moral dilemmas that aren't easily solved by rules. These psychiatrists are well aware of the professional risk they're taking by speaking out. Before accusing them of being partisan hacks, can you take an objective look at other possible motives for taking that risk?

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You allege NPD. Is NPD disqualifying? Why? Isn't it possible for someone with NPD to be high-functioning, mostly rational and successful?
Disqualifying from what, and successful at what? President of the Trump Organization? The star of the Apprentice? Demagogue politician? Or President of the United States?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:12 AM   #341
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Says another person who cannot articulate just which tests or exams one would do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis.
At the very least, one would need access to their medical chart which would have notes of previous clinical interviews, psych testing results, etc. I agree that an in person examination may not be strictly necessary, but certainly you need more than watching him on TV.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:13 AM   #342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
OK, time to get real: What changes, after this announcement?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:16 AM   #343
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,336
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This is exactly what the 25th Amendment allows for. The VP does not need an MD evaluation in order to make his own judgement and seek concurrence from the cabinet. There doesn't have to be a diagnosis.

No one has said that "merely observing his behaviour is insufficient to begin an investigation." Clearly, the VP can "begin an investigation" based on his own observations.

An untrained, lay observer's opinion counts and cannot be disregarded as merely politically motivated, however a slew of highly trained mental health professionals can be safely disregarded and impugned with accusations of being politically motivated.


Well, I'm up to speed now, at least.




Quote:
What has been said is that a psychiatrist (or any other medical professional) should not render a professional opinion without examining the patient themselves. At the very least, if they do render a professional opinion, it shouldn't be given much weight.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:27 AM   #344
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
All of us are in a position to observe Trump's behavior and to compare it to the description of narcissistic personality disorder, but apparently not all of us are willing to do that objectively. If "Clinton's supposed dementia" can be documented with 1/100th as much evidence, then that absolutely would be an issue in judging her fitness for office, so if any qualified psychiatrist can make that case, then I would have expected them to do so.
I wouldn't expect them to do that. How can I, John Q Public, tell if they are rendering their opinion because they genuinely think she has dementia or because they are trying to smear her? Am I just supposed to rely on their professionalism and good-nature? I'm not naive enough for that, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, too many people would assume they are acting in good faith when they may not be. I think that's a dangerous situation.

Quote:
I do believe the Goldwater Rule serves a useful purpose, and I definitely don't like the idea of just dropping it. But there are such things as ethical and moral dilemmas that aren't easily solved by rules. These psychiatrists are well aware of the professional risk they're taking by speaking out. Before accusing them of being partisan hacks, can you take an objective look at other possible motives for taking that risk?
Sure. I can see that they may genuinely be concerned and are speaking out from of a sense of duty to the public. That is a possibility I can easily concede. Can you concede that it's also possible that they are speaking out in order to get a President they don't like removed and using their position as psychiatrists to give their argument more weight? The problem is, again, how is the public to know what their actual motives are?
That dilemma is the reason why it's wrong for psychiatrists to use the gravitas of their position in society to make public statements about the mental health of politicians they haven't even reviewed medical records about.


Quote:
Disqualifying from what, and successful at what? President of the Trump Organization? The star of the Apprentice? Demagogue politician? Or President of the United States?
President, obviously. It's certainly possible that people with mental illnesses have already served as President.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:48 AM   #345
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
An untrained, lay observer's opinion counts and cannot be disregarded as merely politically motivated, however a slew of highly trained mental health professionals can be safely disregarded and impugned with accusations of being politically motivated.


Well, I'm up to speed now, at least.
No one said we had to regard the vice president's opinion as not politically motivated. The 25th amendment permits it being politically motivated....or personally motivated....or even motivated by the vice president's own mental illness.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:53 AM   #346
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
An untrained, lay observer's opinion counts and cannot be disregarded as merely politically motivated,
It can be regarded however you like. If the President challenges, then Congress has to vote on the matter. It would be hard to pull off such a move on purely political grounds. However, if the President was obviously unstable, it would be much easier to convince Congress to remove him.
Quote:
however a slew of highly trained mental health professionals can be safely disregarded and impugned with accusations of being politically motivated.


Well, I'm up to speed now, at least.
That's about the size of it.

For me, the opinion of the "slew of highly trained mental health professionals," has to be judged in light of the fact that: 1)They haven't examined Trump themselves -they haven't even reviewed his medical records; 2)They are acting outside the bounds of their profession's standards of practice and ethics and 3)There is the possibility that they are using their position as experts to make a political attack. Those three factors are enough for me to take their opinion with a grain of salt. YMMV
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:54 AM   #347
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Who's sticking up for Trump? I'm sticking up for psychiatry. ....
But you are misguided, fixated on something that isn't an absolute and isn't valid in this case.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:01 PM   #348
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It may be their opinion but that opinion is not a professional one unless they have examined him. Until then it's at best a professional guess.

What is your profession? Surely whatever it is there are matters within it that you would require study before pronouncing your professional opinion.
You keep asserting this falsehood while never answering the key question this poses: which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis?

There is no better method in psychiatry for making a diagnosis than observation of the patient in his real-life interactions.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:03 PM   #349
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
They probably know more about Trump than they do people who are actually their patients.
That's a safe bet.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:06 PM   #350
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,473
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I wouldn't expect them to do that. How can I, John Q Public, tell if they are rendering their opinion because they genuinely think she has dementia or because they are trying to smear her? Am I just supposed to rely on their professionalism and good-nature? I'm not naive enough for that, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, too many people would assume they are acting in good faith when they may not be. I think that's a dangerous situation.


Sure. I can see that they may genuinely be concerned and are speaking out from of a sense of duty to the public. That is a possibility I can easily concede. Can you concede that it's also possible that they are speaking out in order to get a President they don't like removed and using their position as psychiatrists to give their argument more weight? The problem is, again, how is the public to know what their actual motives are?
That dilemma is the reason why it's wrong for psychiatrists to use the gravitas of their position in society to make public statements about the mental health of politicians they haven't even reviewed medical records about.
How do you decide in other areas where professional opinion intersects with politics, such as the dangers of smoking, the AIDS epidemic, climate change, vaccinations, and various socio-economic issues? Everyone is allowed to speak, but professionals carry more weight, and if they disagree then John Q. Public has to sort it out somehow. My preference is weighing the arguments against the evidence.

Quote:
President, obviously. It's certainly possible that people with mental illnesses have already served as President.
... and they didn't start WW III? I feel much better now, thanks.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:09 PM   #351
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You keep asserting this falsehood while never answering the key question this poses: which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis?
A review of relevant medical records, personal clinical interview, interview with family members and close associates and a psychological test or two would be a good start.

Quote:
There is no better method in psychiatry for making a diagnosis than observation of the patient in his real-life interactions.
What evidence do you have that these psychiatrists observed his daily interactions in his real life? As far as I can tell, they are going by what they've seen of Trump on TV. There are certainly better methods in psychiatry than watching the subject on TV . . .
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:23 PM   #352
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,305
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
An elected official is not employee even if it makes sense for the IRS to classify them as such. They are not a polysci institution and are not there to answer our political science questions.

ETA, from a philosophical or polysci perspective we might conclude elected officials are employees, but the fact they get a W-2 won't matter.


See if you can follow.

The President gets paid. Yes or no?

From where does the money come from? Taxes - yes or no?
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #353
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
I keep seeing this point put forward, but I am not sure why. Do you believe these shrinks are going through hundreds of hours of video footage before forming their opinion on Trump? For example -
The reason why stems from the nature of a personality disorder. There are classic behaviors one exhibits when one has a pathologic narcissistic personality disorder.

Trump displays these behaviors consistently and predictably. Just observing him throughout the campaign process was sufficient to make said diagnosis. The fact he continues to display the same classic behaviors only adds more proof to the pudding.


Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
A statement on crowd size is proof he's delusional?
This is a classic straw man.


Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
And I am suppose to believe this guy is forming his opinion only after dedicating the time to go through the huge amount public information about Trump?
"This guy", as in a number of psychologists and psychiatrists who have made public statements?


Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
What kind of random nonsense is this? Is your qualifications as a nurse give your opinion more weight than the APA? You know, the collection of professionals with expertise in this specific field, that have stated it is wrong/unethical/unprofessional. The vast majority still work within the confines of that rule, including at the specific event mentioned. Only the organizer went as far as to bend/break it, not any other doctor on the panel itself. Why argue that the outlier of the group is the correct one, just because his opinion matches yours?

Dunning Kruger indeed.


The APA is a professional association. It's not a regulating body. Like most of these professional organizations they have position papers.
Quote:
A position paper is an essay that presents an opinion about an issue typically that of the author or some specified entity. Position papers are published in academia, in politics, in law and other domains. A position paper presents an arguable opinion about an issue. The goal of a position paper is to convince the audience that your opinion is valid and worth listening to. Ideas that you are considering need to be carefully examined in choosing a topic, developing your argument, and organizing your paper.
There are a number of psychiatric organizations including the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. You really need to stop denigrating nurses. But I digress.

There's a World Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), The American Association of Chairs of Departments of Psychiatry (AACDP), American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training (AADPRT), American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), The Association of Women Psychiatrists (AWP), and more.

You all really need to stop acting like the APA is a regulating body or a body that sets practice standards. The APA has opinion positions on practice standards. No one is held to those standards as a matter of law. If one harms a patient, the fact one didn't follow an accepted standard can have an influence on a court decision. It would never be the sole reason a provider lost his/her credentials.

For example, I am allowed by law to prescribe outside the FDA approval for a drug as long as the drug is approved for the market. That's a clear-cut example where one can act outside of a practice standard provided one can justify one's actions.


The ignorance in this thread about the significance of an APA position on this matter is a Dunning Kruger effect indeed.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #354
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
How do you decide in other areas where professional opinion intersects with politics, such as the dangers of smoking, the AIDS epidemic, climate change, vaccinations, and various socio-economic issues?
I think there is a difference between scientists informing political debate and psychiatrists evaluating the medical state of political figures.
Quote:
Everyone is allowed to speak, but professionals carry more weight,
In the political arena, scientists are but one voice and they don't carry any more weight than any other citizen. Scientists don't make policy decisions. But in the public arena, doctor's opinions carry a lot of weight; what they say about people can influence how those people are perceived by the public. This can be unfair if the doctor public states that a political figure is mentally unstable.
Quote:
and if they disagree then John Q. Public has to sort it out somehow. My preference is weighing the arguments against the evidence.
My preference is that scientists (doctors included) make public statements that are accurate and follow the standards of ethics and practice of their profession.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #355
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,305
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Trump's "disqualifying behaviors" were on display during the election. The voters decided they didn't care.
The voters that selected him were hand-picked because they are morons and easily fooled into thinking that Trump gave a **** about them.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:28 PM   #356
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm definitely in the group that it is none of our business if he is mentally ill.
OMG! He's the POTUS. Of course it's our business, be one in the US or not.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th April 2017 at 01:11 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:32 PM   #357
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OMG! He the POTUS. Of course it's our business, be one in the US or not.
Nope. Same right to medical privacy every American has.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:33 PM   #358
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post


See if you can follow.

The President gets paid. Yes or no?

From where does the money come from? Taxes - yes or no?
All irrelevant.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:49 PM   #359
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,778
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The voters that selected him were hand-picked because they are morons and easily fooled into thinking that Trump gave a **** about them.
I'm sorry, what? People who voted for Trump were hand picked? By whom?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:50 PM   #360
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,835
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Then psychologists are not breaking an explicit ethics rule, though it does not follow that they are behaving ethically. Obviously, there are many ways to behave unethically without violating the rules of one's professional organization. ...
And yet: More than a few prestigious psychiatrists disagree with the APA position in this circumstance.
Quote:
Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School until 2015, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness.”
52,168 (so far) professionals have gone public with their names and degrees in a petition.
Quote:
We, the undersigned mental health professionals (please state your degree), believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Several people in this thread keep arguing as if it is forumite opinion vs the APA's position developed decades ago specifically to address professional opinions that came out against Goldwater. The two situations are as different than night and day.

First, the issue is psychiatrist against psychiatrist, let's get that straight.

Second, let's look at the difference between the Goldwater case and the Trump case.

In the Trump case he displays classic symptoms of a well defined personality disorder.

In the Goldwater case, it was Freudian based opinions, something no longer held valid in the US (I understand some countries in Europe still consider Freud valid).
Quote:
“The Presidency should not be used as a platform for proving one’s manhood . . .”

“Inwardly he is a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him . . .”

“Since his nomination I find myself increasingly thinking of the early 1930s . . .”

“Unconsciously he seems to want to destroy himself. He has a good start, for he has already destroyed the Republican party . . .”
Those are not well defined psychiatric diagnoses. Those were psychiatrists' remarks on a survey. Goldwater sued and won.

The HuffPo article is excellent for understanding the issues of the day that led to the Goldwater rule, and for seeing how they do not apply to Trump today.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th April 2017 at 12:51 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.