|
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. |
25th April 2017, 12:53 PM | #361 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 12:54 PM | #362 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
if he is psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States, then how is he competently discharging the duties of the president of the United States right now? Did he try to veto a piece of legislation and fail to make the signature? What duty is he not discharging?
|
25th April 2017, 12:57 PM | #363 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 12:58 PM | #364 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
The APA is different in that, unlike other bodies, it does indeed sanction it's members for ethical violations. It also reports more severe violations to the State Medical Board. No, the APA can't revoke a medical license but the State can based on the findings of the APA.
Quote:
Quote:
Deviating from the standards of practice and ethics carries risk. Sometimes that risk is personal, sometimes it's societal. In this case, I think it's dangerous to allow psychiatrists to make public declarations about anyone, public figures especially, without having 1)Examined the patient themselves (at the very least reviewed their medical records and actually, you know, meet the patient) and 2)Gotten permission from the patient to discuss their case. The potential for abuse is simply too high.
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 01:00 PM | #365 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 01:04 PM | #366 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Same question for you, the one no one taking your position can answer: which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis?
You guys just keep asserting the same BS without being able to justify your assertion. Which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis? Which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis? Which tests or exams would one do in-person to improve on the accuracy of the diagnosis? Thought I'd save time in future posts and just ask the question repeatedly here. |
25th April 2017, 01:08 PM | #367 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Sorry, that's the kind of answer one gives on a test to try to BS one's way through the answer. Interviews? We have thousands of hours of interviews in the public record. What test? What test would that be? Oh that's right, the imaginary magical test psychiatrists use. As for more than watching him on TV, that shows your lack of understanding just what one is observing in Trump's behavior that consists of classic behavior of a narcissistic personality disorder. |
25th April 2017, 01:17 PM | #368 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Not very well.
He's not staffed the departments he needs to staff. Of the staff he has hired, several had to be let go because of concerning ties to Russia. He's put his unqualified kids in positions of power. He's made dangerous undiplomatic statements both on Twitter and in person. The dysfunction in the federal government is getting worse. And that's not even getting into the kleptocracy issues. |
25th April 2017, 01:19 PM | #369 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 01:28 PM | #370 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Link?
We are all required by law to report colleagues for certain behaviors, mostly diversion of narcotics, intoxicated on the job and any kind of patient abuse. Losing one's license based on the findings of the APA? This is imaginary nonsense. Oh for pity's sake, do you think they hold trials? The same is true if a patient is harmed by an on-label use of a med if I'm negligent for any number of reasons. BTW, you don't lose your license because of a malpractice issue by itself. Your post is full of evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. There's no sense in having this discussion when all you are doing is pulling stuff out or your nether regions. Look up reasons MDs get their licenses suspended. You will find sexual abuse and drugs/alcohol related offenses almost exclusively dominate the reasons. A small percentage are disciplined for malpractice, usually because they came to work intoxicated or prescribed drugs the provider knew were being diverted. |
25th April 2017, 01:47 PM | #371 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,011
|
I had a much more thorough response but chrome crash will lead me to shorten this up.
You in no way answered my question. I asked why state the abundance of resources when there is no evidence the shrinks giving their opinion examined any of them? For a. issue as big as they claim, they have not put forward any breakdown of their analysis, any papers covering how they reached their conclusion, nor any statements that express what they have gone over to reach said conclusions. Putting forward the amount of footage means nothing. I have only seen one opinion from a psychologist that was based on viewing 600(?) hours of Trump footage (no breakdown of what kind of footage) which lead him to believe Trump has NPD. He also came to the same conclusion about Obama in the past. I literally quoted the statement by the doctor. He used the word proved. How exactly is that a straw man, especially when I am referring to the implication of his opinion being made up from short random statements by Trump. Feel free to address my argument. .. This guy as in the specific guy I referenced. But sure, you can add them all in as well. Show me any statements, papers, evidence of any kind that they have spent the time to form their diagnosis from the vast amount of info available. For an issue so pressing, you would think they would have something to refer to on how they reached their conclusion. Am I really the only one that thinks that is an issue? As well, the specific event referenced, purposefully stated that the organizer was the only one there that went against the Goldwater Rule. No other doctors on the panel did. So again, why should I base my opinions on the outlier of the group? Why is he right? Could it be because you agree with him? [Edit] Also, should we ignore the diagnosis of others that don't believe Trump has NPD? As i referenced earlier -
Quote:
Huh. You gave you opinion and tried to add weight to it with your occupation as a nurse. I referenced the opinion of the APA, an organization that encompasses a large number of doctors in the related field that disagree with your view. There is no need for them to hold regulatory power to reference their position on something. So I can't reference an organization that holds an opinion in opposition to yours, but you can reference your opinion and those of professionals who also hold it? As for all the other organizations you stated, which hold opinions in opposition to the APA in regards to this? Feel free to share any public statements they've made that support your view. So if I reference the position of any medical association within the field they specialize in, it is the Dunning Kruger effect? News to me. |
25th April 2017, 02:07 PM | #372 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
It is telling that you believe a group of hand-picked Trump subordinates could be counted upon to set aside their loyalties (and ticket to power) in favor of seeing their boss possibly removed from office, and still question the motives of a large group of medical professionals because of some completely unfounded suspicion that they might be politically motivated. That says a lot more about your biases than theirs. |
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
25th April 2017, 02:32 PM | #373 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Hate when that happens.
It's a safe assumption given you can't get away from Trump here in the US. You're grasping at straws here. You cited one single thing: "A statement on crowd size is proof he's delusional" when it is one of many many delusions we've seen Trump describe. It may well have been a single example but it is by no means the sole evidence Trump is delusional. Same answer as to your second quote above, this argument isn't worth addressing. Again, so what? I cited a petition that over 50,000 professionals signed. Even if only 1/4 of those are actual professionals, it's substantially more than one. Since I side with the NPD diagnosis, I can't comment on other professionals that side against it. This came up in an earlier discussion, some bigwig at Harvard IIRC, has a definition of mentally ill that mandates being unable to function. He was on the committee that developed the DSMIV (or 5). That's his prerogative. Not all his colleagues agree. I don't. I think Trump's disorder does indeed interfere with his functioning. Just because you get by doesn't mean you don't have pathology. You're mixing apples and oranges. First, I'm a nurse practitioner, not just a nurse. Second, nurses most definitely have knowledge about psychiatric diagnoses. As for the APA and regulatory authority, it's tiring to argue with people in this thread who have an imaginary view of what the APA is and what an APA position on practice standards means. Bottom line, there is nothing here that means a psychiatrist voicing an opinion on Trump's mental health risks the professional's license. You all need to just drop that nonsense. It's a position paper, nothing more. And as it turns out, it doesn't exactly apply to the current situation. Again, bottom line, this isn't Ginger vs the APA. It's many professionals vs many other professionals. More straw. I made no such argument. I said people in this thread including you don't have a good grasp on the significance of the Goldwater Rule. And you don't. More straw. Twist everything around so you can argue against it. You conflate the APA with a regulatory body. Given however it was xjx388 who made up the fantasy the APA would report a psychiatrist and have some role in seeking disciplinary action, if you admit that is not your belief as well, then your ignorance of the significance of the Goldwater Rule is less. But it's still ignorant. We do look to professional organizations for standards. But no one complies to those standards 100% without any objections. In this case more than a few well qualified professionals have felt it was more important to speak up about Trump than to apply the Goldwater Rule. It's not that relevant to this case. It was written based on completely different circumstances. |
25th April 2017, 02:52 PM | #374 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
What a peculiar thing to say. You're kidding, I hope. All that would be needed would be for a party to have enough control over the two houses to force the result they wanted. A two thirds vote from each house would do the trick. And they don't even have to use the 25th Amendment to do it. Andrew Johnson was impeached for purely political motives, and only missed being removed from office by one Senate vote. I suspect that any President actually removed from office will have arrived at that by politically motivated efforts as much if not more than because of any other consideration. |
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
25th April 2017, 02:57 PM | #375 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,906
|
In my opinion (with no professional training, just a lot of absorption of information) I'm not that concerned about his narcissistic personality disorder alone. What worries me is that he seems to be showing signs of dementia. He has a family history of Alzheimer's disease, and dementia *combined* with a narcissistic personality is extremely worrisome. Irritability, volatility and possible violent behavior on top of a need to always be the biggest and best, with confabulation to fill in the memory gaps ... does that sound at all familiar? Losing vocabulary and using the same words over and over as a result?
And that can be easily tested in a short screening. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a testable phenomenon. You may not be able to tell if it's officially Alzheimer's easily, but you can certainly diagnose dementia. |
25th April 2017, 03:07 PM | #376 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Earlier, I linked to the APA's site where the "Principles of Medical Ethics." is published. You have to download the PDF.
Quote:
To wit:
Originally Posted by APA Code of Ethics
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Texas Medical Board
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 03:09 PM | #377 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 03:12 PM | #378 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The island of Atlanta
Posts: 1,240
|
If a physician did do an examination of Trump would he/she be able to discuss it without Trumps specific permission?
I'm guessing no. |
__________________
.. The stars were suns, but so far away they were just little points of light ... The scale of the universe suddenly opened up to me. It was a kind of religious experience. There was a magnificence to it, a grandeur, a scale which has never left me. Never ever left me. Carl Sagan |
|
25th April 2017, 03:19 PM | #379 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
It's obvious that someone in here is misguided. My money's on a family practice nurse who thinks she has more authority on the ethics of psychiatric practice than the APA.
If there are any psychologists reading this I invite them to diagnose the participants in this conversation based on their posts which, after all, constitute "public behavior". No examination required! per the very highest authority in the field. |
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
25th April 2017, 03:28 PM | #380 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
25th April 2017, 03:45 PM | #381 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,023
|
^This^
Quote:
|
25th April 2017, 03:46 PM | #382 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,023
|
|
25th April 2017, 03:58 PM | #383 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,011
|
No, it is literally just an assumption.
Again, you literally skip over my point. I'm done repeating since you don't want to have an honest discussion. Ok, so you have no intention of defending your position. We should just agree, because -blank-. If you have no interest in defending your position, what is the purpose of offering it? Is my idea that someone providing their opinion on here should show some proof? Do you not expect the same of trained professionals giving their professional opinion? I do, which is why i distrust professionals that provide no basis for how they formed their opinion, especially when they state that the stakes are high in regards to it. I have a sneaky suspicion this is only the case with ideas you support. Why bother finding support for an argument that you already know is correct, amirite? Why bother even referencing a change.org petition. Might as well go reference the Architect and Engineer 911 truth petition in the conspiracy sub forum to support a position. You would be better off citing the membership of Duty to Warn, which numbers in 2-3 dozen members, all mental health professionals. I'd put more weight in that. You don't have to comment on his diagnosis. The question remains why the diagnosis you agree with should hold more weight than the one you disagree with in this case. In your mind, 'the argument isn't worth addressing'. I am mixing nothing. You offered your opinion and said others support it. I offered the opinion of an association of professionals in that field that don't support it. No one said it was you against the world. I referenced a large body of professionals and asked you to support your argument with a counter example of another large organization that agrees with you. Or a group. Or anything besides a vague 'many vs many'. 1,000 vs 100,000 is many vs many, but one is the minority opinion. Would you concede your opinion is in the minority, or back up your claim if you disagree? If posting history is any indication, I shouldn't expect anything at all. .. You really seem to like to say straw for some reason. I don't need a strong grasp of the Goldwater Rule to offer up the opinion of professionals that DO have a good grasp on it's significance. You are arguing against their opinion, not mine. As well I have not referenced them in any way besides a differing view than the one you hold. Again, you referenced a number of Associations in the field. I asked if any publicly hold your position. You didn't respond to that, so I have to assume they don't. So listing them is pointless. I think we all know there are other organizations in the field of mental health. The fact they exist means absolutely squat. I literally don't care at all about the Goldwater Rule. I didn't reference it in any of my posts besides ones where it was brought up by you. I never put any weight in their ability to enforce said rule, and I certainly am not looking to debate someone else's position on this. I quoted you in reference to it because you seem to believe others are not capable of referencing professionals that have differing stances than you in regards to it as a counter argument to your claims. I felt and still feel that is a ridiculous notion. If a doctor claims vaccines cause autism, I don't need to understand the exact science to reference etymologists that do and refute the idea. You don't feel this is appropriate in this instance because -blank-. |
25th April 2017, 04:03 PM | #384 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
I like how one of the attributes most touted by Trump's supporters is that he's not a politician. Now, apparently, he's just like every other politician. What about a personal interview would upgrade the conclusion to something more than speculation? I have yet to see anyone even attempt to answer similar questions. At this point, the best answer seems to be, "Because reasons." That's a shame. If it's a matter of fitness for the position, whether a person is actually crazy, or just acting crazy, is irrelevant. The answer to the question, "Is this person fit for the job," is, "No," in both cases. By definition. Of course, that depends on whether or not he actually believes it. At best, it's a delusional statement. But if he insists on frequently making delusional statements, absent a personal evaluation indicating otherwise, there's only one reasonable course of action: treat him as if he's delusional. Even if a personal evaluation indicates otherwise, where's the logic in allowing such a person to continue making such statements in their current role? |
25th April 2017, 04:15 PM | #385 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Your example of discipline for malpractice doesn't even come close to the charge of making a public statement about a person's mental illness or violating the Goldwater Rule. Do you seriously not know the difference?
You continue to conflate the serious with the minor. You can't find a single case where the APA or any medical board cares about violations of the Goldwater Rule. It is a position, it is not a rule or regulation. By the way, I can't find anything about the Goldwater Rule in that Principles of Medical Ethics citation. |
25th April 2017, 04:19 PM | #386 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
I will await with some interest the impending flood of reports and defrocking of the medical professionals guilty of the heinous crime of expressing their professional opinions in a manner (supposedly) not sanctioned by their professional organizations. With thousands of them imminent it should make quite a splash in the news. |
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
25th April 2017, 04:23 PM | #387 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
Armchairs are in season
|
25th April 2017, 04:25 PM | #388 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Only if court ordered.
This is another issue the lay public doesn't always have a complete understanding of. Anything you learn about a patient in the course of your job is governed by confidentiality laws. Anything you learn about a person who is not your patient and you didn't learn about through an illegal disclosure is not governed by confidentiality law. The information about Trump is in the public sphere. All these physicians are disclosing is their medical expertise. |
25th April 2017, 04:27 PM | #389 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 04:32 PM | #390 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
More straw.
The nature of observations of Trump's behavior is not the equivalence of watching the news. He is observed lying blatantly specifically when something threatens his ego. He sticks to the lie even in the face of overwhelming evidence it is a lie. He is constantly obsessed with himself and how he's being portrayed, be it on the news or in any other public sphere, to the exclusion of other matters. Remember, this is the guy who would call up magazine writers and tell stories about his conquests of women for them to report in their magazines. Those are the kinds of observations being made. |
25th April 2017, 04:35 PM | #391 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 04:38 PM | #392 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Diagnosing a patient you are then going to treat is a completely different situation.
As for Dr Gartner, I believe these are his credentials.
Quote:
And you work in a mental health clinic. |
25th April 2017, 04:40 PM | #393 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
25th April 2017, 04:42 PM | #394 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
25th April 2017, 04:44 PM | #395 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
25th April 2017, 04:59 PM | #396 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
25th April 2017, 05:39 PM | #397 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
That example was meant to counter your claim that doctors don't lose their license for malpractice alone, not illustrate violations of the Goldwater Rule. A bit off-topic, perhaps, but responsive to your claim of: "BTW, you don't lose your license because of a malpractice issue by itself. "
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 05:52 PM | #398 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Or maybe he just enjoys messing with people who care so much about the size of his inauguration crowd. There are many ways to interpret his behavior and they don't all involve him being mentally ill.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 06:26 PM | #399 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Damn isn't among the censored words.
It's not me against the experts, it's me on one side of a battle between experts. I merely pointed out your ad hom argument:
Quote:
And now you pile ad homs on: "armchair psychologists". It's dishonest to leave out the GLARING fact there is a disagreement between professionals. If anyone here is playing armchair psychology, it's the people who don't understand the lack of relevance of the Goldwater Rule. |
25th April 2017, 06:30 PM | #400 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
So you cite an example that has no relevance?
No one is being disciplined by the APA for stating publicly that they believe Trump has a pathology. Until you figure that out, all your arguments are irrelevant. I'm sorry you don't like it but I'm not going to argue this with you anymore. Bump the thread when someone is actually disciplined for this. Section 7:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, not all psychiatrists agree with this guideline in this case. And the fact it is in the APA's ethics position paper does not mean it will ever be applied to a professional to challenge their license. That is the GLARING part many in this thread don't understand. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|