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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 23rd September 2020, 03:51 PM   #1001
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
NPD can be benign in the sense that it's not necessarily a dangerous condition. The factors that make a person dangerous often have little to do with an underlying mental illness.
Which is what I just said.

Quote:
Donald Trump is dangerous in a lot of senses regardless of whether or not he has a mental illness. Since dangerousness is not really a medical condition, it's entirely possible for a mental health professional to speak about it as a citizen with experience, rather than as a professional giving a professional opinion.
But when the dangerousness is due to a mental illness, then it is the duty of professionals to let the public know about it. I sure as hell want to know if the person running for POTUS is a freaking hedonistic psychopath and some APA Goldwater rule be damned.



Quote:
Yes, hence the thread, lol.
Then why did you claim no doctor would say "dangerous mental illness"?
Stacyhs is online now   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 23rd September 2020, 03:52 PM   #1002
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Bad example. Treating someone isn't a reason to disclose a mental illness. No wonder you keep digging in, you apparently don't realize you are arguing straw men.

Try these: Psychiatrist becomes aware a mentally ill patient is abusing their child.

Psychiatrist becomes aware a teenager is planning to shoot up their school.

Do you see how those examples are exceptions to confidentiality rules and instead necessitate a duty to warn?
I'm going to buy shovel stock.
Stacyhs is online now   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 24th September 2020, 12:04 PM   #1003
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Bad example. Treating someone isn't a reason to disclose a mental illness. No wonder you keep digging in, you apparently don't realize you are arguing straw men.

Try these: Psychiatrist becomes aware a mentally ill patient is abusing their child.

Psychiatrist becomes aware a teenager is planning to shoot up their school.

Do you see how those examples are exceptions to confidentiality rules and instead necessitate a duty to warn?

Absolutely: specific imminent threats to specific people invoke a duty to warn. If Trump’s doctor learns he is going to launch nukes against NK unprovoked, yeah, duty to warn.

Docs who have never met him with only a vague “he’s dangerous?” Not so much.
__________________
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 24th September 2020, 12:06 PM   #1004
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Which is what I just said.



But when the dangerousness is due to a mental illness, then it is the duty of professionals to let the public know about it. I sure as hell want to know if the person running for POTUS is a freaking hedonistic psychopath and some APA Goldwater rule be damned.





Then why did you claim no doctor would say "dangerous mental illness"?

Because that’s not something that goes on an evaluation form. You won’t find that in clinical notes because “dangerous” is not a medical condition.
__________________
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 24th September 2020, 12:49 PM   #1005
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If a doctor treats a mayoral candidate, do you think they have a duty to inform the public about mental illnesses they might have?

I also think it’s important to note that “dangerous mental illness” is not something a doctor would say.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Because that’s not something that goes on an evaluation form. You won’t find that in clinical notes because “dangerous” is not a medical condition.
But a medical doctor did say it. Besides, who really gives a rat's ass anyway? This is all just nitpicking.
Stacyhs is online now   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 September 2020, 05:34 AM   #1006
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But a medical doctor did say it. Besides, who really gives a rat's ass anyway? This is all just nitpicking.

I don’t think it’s nitpicking to point out that “dangerous mental illness” isn’t a clinical term. “But a medical doctor did say it,” does not make it a valid medical opinion.

Besides, sometimes you gotta pick the nits so the lice don’t come back.
__________________
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 September 2020, 11:49 AM   #1007
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to point out that “dangerous mental illness” isn’t a clinical term. “But a medical doctor did say it,” does not make it a valid medical opinion.

Besides, sometimes you gotta pick the nits so the lice don’t come back.
Yes, it is because that was never really the point.

We've gotten way off topic.
'Does Trump have a dangerous mental illness' is the topic, not whether or not a doctor would use that term in a medical evaluation. You've basically bobbed the conversation and taken us down a rabbit hole.
Stacyhs is online now   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 September 2020, 11:54 AM   #1008
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to point out that “dangerous mental illness” isn’t a clinical term. “But a medical doctor did say it,” does not make it a valid medical opinion.

Besides, sometimes you gotta pick the nits so the lice don’t come back.
Okay, let's say he has a mental illness that makes him dangerous in his current position. Is that better? Nobody would care if he was just a crazy lying real estate huckster. But that is not his current occupation.
Bob001 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 September 2020, 12:05 PM   #1009
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Absolutely: specific imminent threats to specific people invoke a duty to warn. If Trump’s doctor learns he is going to launch nukes against NK unprovoked, yeah, duty to warn.

Docs who have never met him with only a vague “he’s dangerous?” Not so much.
I'm pretty sure most people see 200,000 needless COVID deaths, not to mention the cost of the length of he lockdown and chronic illness some people with COVID are experiencing more than justifies the threat people had in mind.

You seem to be narrowing the definition of 'known imminent threat' to suit your confirmation bias. Whereas what I and many other professionals believed the threat Trump as POTUS posed has sadly come to fruition.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th September 2020 at 12:07 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 September 2020, 05:10 PM   #1010
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,543
A restaurant owner would be culpable if through deliberate negligence a single patron died of botulism.

A President who through deliberate negligence causes the deaths of over 100,000* fellow citizens via a known-to-be deadly virus is just doing his job? No repercussions? The Woodward tape proves Trump's knowing and deliberate placing of people in harm's way.

This warrants thread conclusion and closure.

*I'm using the conservative estimate of half the Covid deaths being completely preventable had Trump acted on what he knew in late February or early March.
Lurch 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 September 2020, 07:02 PM   #1011
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,011
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I sure as hell want to know if the person running for POTUS is a freaking hedonistic psychopath and some APA Goldwater rule be damned.
Problem is the Goldwater rule was specifically crafted to prevent being warned about a hedonistic psychopath POTUS.

Like I said, it's a bad rule. But what's worse is it's being used by Trump apologists to discredit the experts and poison the information - just like they do with all other important topics. The reason for doing this is totally political, nothing to do with medical ethics as they should be applied.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 September 2020, 08:00 PM   #1012
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Problem is the Goldwater rule was specifically crafted to prevent being warned about a hedonistic psychopath POTUS.

Like I said, it's a bad rule. But what's worse is it's being used by Trump apologists to discredit the experts and poison the information - just like they do with all other important topics. The reason for doing this is totally political, nothing to do with medical ethics as they should be applied.
I don't think so. I think we'd need to go back over the case at the time and see how politics influenced the initial case and the response.

Goldwater was not exactly Trump. Goldwater had extreme political views. He wasn't a self-absorbed pathological narcissist. There is a difference. Both might indeed be dangerous, but I'm not sure a psychiatric diagnosis was the clear and only issue when it came to Goldwater. With Trump it is.

Assuming this site is correct (I'm not that interested, it's not relevant to Trump):

Why did some people find Barry Goldwater's views threatening?
Quote:
Goldwater was a bit of an extremists in term of policy. He is responsible for taking Republican policies and taking them further right. He rallied against things like The Great Society (The Great Society was a program launched by President Johnson to try and eliminate poverty and racial injustice.) and he also rallied against welfare programs. Goldwater was seen as a racist by many. That hurt his support among normal Republicans...

Goldwater was also known as a huge supporter of the nuclear program. Nuclear war was a real threat back than and still kind of is today. The Johnson campaign released an infamous "Daisy" ad attacking Goldwater's support of using nuclear weapons. The ad is linked below.
I don't know anyone (in my limited anti-war circle) at the time who were even aware that any psychiatrists had expressed an opinion or that "the Goldwater Rule" followed.

AFAIK, Goldwater was defeated by the infamous Daisy ad and the anti-war sentiment at the time. It wasn't that long after the 'duck and cover' era.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th September 2020 at 08:03 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 September 2020, 09:14 PM   #1013
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't think so. I think we'd need to go back over the case at the time and see how politics influenced the initial case and the response.
.....

It's pretty clear that the Goldwater rule was instituted in response to the backlash that followed when some psychiatrists responding to a magazine poll claimed that Goldwater's purported support for using nuclear weapons in Vietnam made him dangerous. Goldwater sued the magazine and won, and psychiatry in general suffered a black eye. The rule was a way for the APA to say "We're sorry and we won't do it again." It was a public relations ploy as much as an ethical prohibition. But the AMA, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychoanalytic Association have no such rules.
https://time.com/4872558/donald-trump-goldwater-rule/
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ter-rule-trump
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...goldwater-rule
Bob001 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 September 2020, 10:59 PM   #1014
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It's pretty clear that the Goldwater rule was instituted in response to the backlash that followed when some psychiatrists responding to a magazine poll claimed that Goldwater's purported support for using nuclear weapons in Vietnam made him dangerous. Goldwater sued the magazine and won, and psychiatry in general suffered a black eye. The rule was a way for the APA to say "We're sorry and we won't do it again." It was a public relations ploy as much as an ethical prohibition. But the AMA, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychoanalytic Association have no such rules.
https://time.com/4872558/donald-trump-goldwater-rule/
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ter-rule-trump
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...goldwater-rule
The highlighted is a given. I think you've described the situation well. And the reason this rule doesn't apply to Trump is clear.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
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 26th September 2020, 07:44 AM   #1015
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
More expert opinion:
Quote:
We are psychologists, and we are convinced Donald Trump is a psychopath. His malignant behavior over the past four years is growing and escalating right before our eyes. Trump’s psychopathy will change us forever if he is not stopped.

This is not hyperbole. This is not an expression of "a left-wing agenda.” This is a mental health opinion based on thousands of hours of documented behavior by this president.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...vue-story.html
Bob001 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 26th September 2020, 12:08 PM   #1016
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But let's not say anything because the Goldwater Rule says we must not.

Blotcky and Norrholm, the authors of the piece above, are not listed as contributors in Bandy Lee's book. So we can add two more psychologists who are speaking out in 'violation' of the Goldwater rule because they feel their duty to warn us that Trump is a FREAKING PSYCHOPATH is more important.
Stacyhs is online now   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 26th September 2020, 03:53 PM   #1017
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But let's not say anything because the Goldwater Rule says we must not.

Blotcky and Norrholm, the authors of the piece above, are not listed as contributors in Bandy Lee's book. So we can add two more psychologists who are speaking out in 'violation' of the Goldwater rule because they feel their duty to warn us that Trump is a FREAKING PSYCHOPATH is more important.
I note again that the standards for membership in the American Psychiatric Association do no apply to psychologists.
Bob001 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 27th September 2020, 07:19 AM   #1018
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm pretty sure most people see 200,000 needless COVID deaths, not to mention the cost of the length of he lockdown and chronic illness some people with COVID are experiencing more than justifies the threat people had in mind.

You seem to be narrowing the definition of 'known imminent threat' to suit your confirmation bias. Whereas what I and many other professionals believed the threat Trump as POTUS posed has sadly come to fruition.

No, I’m simply saying what the actual standard is to invoke a duty to warn -that is, break confidentiality to warn people about a threat posed by an individual. It was the Yale Group who co-opted an inapplicable legal term to justify their ethical breach.

Trump’s stupidity and incompetence is more than adequate to explain his horrendous Covid response. Whether or not he is mentally ill on top of that is irrelevant.
__________________
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 27th September 2020, 07:27 AM   #1019
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
This kind of thing is what should be amplified:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mni-speak-out/

A bunch of ex-Trump admin officials are speaking out publicly about their experience with Trump and why they now oppose his re-election.

These people worked closely with him. What they say should carry a ton more weight than a bunch of people in white coats who have never even spoke with him.

If anything ends this thread it should be to focus on amplifying these voices.
__________________
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 27th September 2020, 07:53 AM   #1020
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,204
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In the 2017 New Yorker article linked above, Justin Frank "a clinical professor at George Washington University," resigned from the A.P.A. in 2003 before writing his book “Bush on the Couch.” He has also written “Obama on the Couch,” and “Trump on the Couch.” Frank told the New Yorker that had he actually examined trump he would then be bound by confidentiality rules not to make any comment. Frank also said:
Quote:
He believes that restraining psychiatrists from speaking about a President based on publicly available information is like telling economists not to speak about the economy, or keeping lawyers from commenting on legal cases in the public eye. link
Although I have followed this thread I have refrained from posting in it. The poster who is most adamant the thread should end has posted almost 20% of the thread's messages. Nonetheless, I think you could make a pretty good case that mental health professionals have a duty -- not as mental health professionals but as human beings -- to 'blow the whistle' if they become convinced the presidency is occupied by someone who shows clear signs of mental illness. It's the president of the United States. The so-called 'most powerful man in the world.' The man with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

I think they have a duty to warn people. There has never been any president who has behaved the way trump has. There is no president who has the same kind of background as trump does. None of us know how this is going to end. Most Americans -- but not all Americans to be sure -- hope this will not end in disaster. But we don't know.

Is trump capable of completely losing it, wrestling 'the football' away from the military aide who guards it and launching a series of 'Screw Everybody!' nuclear attacks? As much as I hate to think this, I believe that scenario is in the realm of possibility. I don't expect it but I didn't expect trump would win the Republican nomination much less the presidency.
newyorkguy 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 27th September 2020, 08:22 AM   #1021
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
.....
Is trump capable of completely losing it, wrestling 'the football' away from the military aide who guards it and launching a series of 'Screw Everybody!' nuclear attacks? As much as I hate to think this, I believe that scenario is in the realm of possibility. I don't expect it but I didn't expect trump would win the Republican nomination much less the presidency.
I just note that unless Trump was literally foaming at the mouth, the aide would likely hand it over when asked. Numerous former officials have said that the command and control systems are designed to provide an immediate response to an imminent threat, and have no counterweight to stop a President from launching nuclear weapons at will.
Bob001 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 27th September 2020, 09:38 AM   #1022
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
No, I’m simply saying what the actual standard is to invoke a duty to warn -that is, break confidentiality to warn people about a threat posed by an individual. It was the Yale Group who co-opted an inapplicable legal term to justify their ethical breach.

Trump’s stupidity and incompetence is more than adequate to explain his horrendous Covid response. Whether or not he is mentally ill on top of that is irrelevant.
That's your standard. Clearly few people agree.

And no, stupidity and incompetence do not explain Trump's COVID response.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
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 27th September 2020, 09:40 AM   #1023
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This kind of thing is what should be amplified:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mni-speak-out/

A bunch of ex-Trump admin officials are speaking out publicly about their experience with Trump and why they now oppose his re-election.

These people worked closely with him. What they say should carry a ton more weight than a bunch of people in white coats who have never even spoke with him.

If anything ends this thread it should be to focus on amplifying these voices.
Trump's coworkers add to the evidence that pathologic narcissism is the correct diagnosis.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
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 27th September 2020, 10:41 AM   #1024
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22,307
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Trump's coworkers add to the evidence that pathologic narcissism is the correct diagnosis.
With a side order of some type of dementia.

Let's just hope it's not the sort that involves hallucinations.

Of course, if he had a psychological and neurological exam with results that were made public, we'd have an idea of what is wrong with him and how it impacts on his fitness to have access to nuclear (and non-nuclear) weapons.

I doubt he'd pass a concealed carry permit.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 27th September 2020, 11:24 AM   #1025
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This kind of thing is what should be amplified:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mni-speak-out/

A bunch of ex-Trump admin officials are speaking out publicly about their experience with Trump and why they now oppose his re-election.

These people worked closely with him. What they say should carry a ton more weight than a bunch of people in white coats who have never even spoke with him.

If anything ends this thread it should be to focus on amplifying these voices.
Classic minimization.
Stacyhs is online now   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 27th September 2020, 12:52 PM   #1026
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This kind of thing is what should be amplified:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mni-speak-out/

A bunch of ex-Trump admin officials are speaking out publicly about their experience with Trump and why they now oppose his re-election.

These people worked closely with him. What they say should carry a ton more weight than a bunch of people in white coats who have never even spoke with him.

If anything ends this thread it should be to focus on amplifying these voices.

But it's not either/or. Those numerous reports from people who have actually observed Trump up close are part of the evidence that shrinks use to reach their conclusions, just as a forensic psychiatrist might talk to a subject's (not patient's) relatives and other people who know him to form a complete picture. Observers report what they see; a shrink puts those facts into a larger context shaped by his expert knowledge and experience.

It looks like you keep insisting that the standards that would apply to the delivery of therapy must be applied to the general assessment of publicly available information. Others do not agree.

Last edited by Bob001; 27th September 2020 at 01:02 PM.
Bob001 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 27th September 2020, 01:34 PM   #1027
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But it's not either/or. Those numerous reports from people who have actually observed Trump up close are part of the evidence that shrinks use to reach their conclusions, just as a forensic psychiatrist might talk to a subject's (not patient's) relatives and other people who know him to form a complete picture. Observers report what they see; a shrink puts those facts into a larger context shaped by his expert knowledge and experience.

It looks like you keep insisting that the standards that would apply to the delivery of therapy must be applied to the general assessment of publicly available information. Others do not agree.
Exactly.
Stacyhs is online now   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 27th September 2020, 03:00 PM   #1028
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's your standard. Clearly few people agree.

And no, stupidity and incompetence do not explain Trump's COVID response.

It’s the legal standard, not mine.

Mental illness definitely doesn’t explain the Covid response. Stupidity: a total misunderstanding of science, willful ignorance, prioritizing economics over lives. Incompetence: failure to act effectively to get PPE and testing in place, failure to push for effective prevention strategies.

The US’s Covid response is the perfect storm of stupidity and incompetence not just on the Federal level, but the State and Local levels as well.

“Trump is mentally ill!” has zero explanatory power and is a side issue that ultimately has no relevance.
__________________
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 27th September 2020, 03:07 PM   #1029
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It’s the legal standard, not mine.
....
No, it's a standard prescribed by one voluntary membership organization. It has no legal weight. You don't see anybody taking legal action, even a civil suit, against anybody who says Trump is bats--t crazy, do you? For that matter, is the APA even trying to sanction anybody in the Yale group? No, as far as I know.

Last edited by Bob001; 27th September 2020 at 03:08 PM.
Bob001 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 27th September 2020, 03:11 PM   #1030
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,723
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
“Trump is mentally ill!” has zero explanatory power and is a side issue that ultimately has no relevance.
In an ideal world, it would eliminate claims that the issue is some kind of policy dispute. People in both parties across the political spectrum should be united in not wanting a lunatic in the White House.

But like I said, that would only be in an ideal world.
Bob001 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 27th September 2020, 03:20 PM   #1031
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It’s the legal standard, not mine.

Mental illness definitely doesn’t explain the Covid response. Stupidity: a total misunderstanding of science, willful ignorance, prioritizing economics over lives. Incompetence: failure to act effectively to get PPE and testing in place, failure to push for effective prevention strategies.

The US’s Covid response is the perfect storm of stupidity and incompetence not just on the Federal level, but the State and Local levels as well.

“Trump is mentally ill!” has zero explanatory power and is a side issue that ultimately has no relevance.
What utter drivel. Legal? It's the Goldwater RULE of a single non- governmental, voluntary, professional organization, not the Goldwater LAW. And yes, Trump's Covid response is most certainly explained by his psychopathy: his prioritizing his re-election over people's lives and the welfare of the nation is a direct result of his extreme narcissism and psychopathy. It doesn't get more relevant than that. I suggest you put the shovel down.
Stacyhs is online now   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 27th September 2020, 07:54 PM   #1032
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No, it's a standard prescribed by one voluntary membership organization. It has no legal weight.


Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What utter drivel. Legal? It's the Goldwater RULE of a single non- governmental, voluntary, professional organization, not the Goldwater LAW.

I was discussing the Duty to Warn established under Tarasoff, which is a legal standard.
__________________
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 27th September 2020, 08:11 PM   #1033
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I was discussing the Duty to Warn established under Tarasoff, which is a legal standard.
I took a quick look at that case. It doesn't apply. The professional involved was treating the patient involved who posed the risk.

But regardless, why don't you describe the definition you seem to think is all-inclusive about what constitutes a relevant 'risk'.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
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 27th September 2020, 08:51 PM   #1034
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I took a quick look at that case. It doesn't apply. The professional involved was treating the patient involved who posed the risk.

But regardless, why don't you describe the definition you seem to think is all-inclusive about what constitutes a relevant 'risk'.

The Yale group used “duty to warn” as a justification for breaking the Goldwater rule. As you point out (and the APA did as well), that legal standard is inapplicable and therefore is not relevant to the Goldwater rule. Which was the original point I raised in this particular stream of the conversation.

Duty to warn, as I’m sure you understand, is invoked by specific information, gleaned through the therapeutic relationship, that would otherwise be protected under confidentiality laws re: the patient-physician relationship.

In this case, there is no law covering what the Yale Group actually did. It remains an, IMO, unjustified breach of the Goldwater rule as explained by the APA. I understand you, the Yale Group and others in the thread disagree with the “unjustified” part -I was making the point that “duty to warn” is not an applicable basis upon which to disagree.
__________________
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 27th September 2020, 09:39 PM   #1035
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,700
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The Yale group used “duty to warn” as a justification for breaking the Goldwater rule. As you point out (and the APA did as well), that legal standard is inapplicable and therefore is not relevant to the Goldwater rule. Which was the original point I raised in this particular stream of the conversation.
Tsk tsk, more straw. That's not what I said, is it? I said the legal standard you cited referred to a specific case, a patient being treated admits to a threat.

Quote:
Duty to warn, as I’m sure you understand, is invoked by specific information, gleaned through the therapeutic relationship, that would otherwise be protected under confidentiality laws re: the patient-physician relationship.

In this case, there is no law covering what the Yale Group actually did. It remains an, IMO, unjustified breach of the Goldwater rule as explained by the APA. I understand you, the Yale Group and others in the thread disagree with the “unjustified” part -I was making the point that “duty to warn” is not an applicable basis upon which to disagree.
Oh man that took some bizarre twists to get where you wanted to go.

You want the 'duty to warn' not to apply? That's a Catch 22. According to your version it can't apply unless the patient is being treated. And the professionals can't make said diagnosis unless they see the patient directly. So this is just your way around the mulberry bush pretending Dr Lee and all the other professionals can't break the Goldwater Rule to warn anyone about any threat ever.

__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
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 27th September 2020, 10:50 PM   #1036
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
There comes a time when even a dog with a bone knows the hole he's dug is deep enough and stops digging.
Stacyhs is online now   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 28th September 2020, 06:37 PM   #1037
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There comes a time when even a dog with a bone knows the hole he's dug is deep enough and stops digging.

Yes. I also can’t explain why you guys keep digging it....
__________________
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 28th September 2020, 06:45 PM   #1038
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Tsk tsk, more straw. That's not what I said, is it? I said the legal standard you cited referred to a specific case, a patient being treated admits to a threat.

Oh man that took some bizarre twists to get where you wanted to go.

You want the 'duty to warn' not to apply? That's a Catch 22. According to your version it can't apply unless the patient is being treated. And the professionals can't make said diagnosis unless they see the patient directly. So this is just your way around the mulberry bush pretending Dr Lee and all the other professionals can't break the Goldwater Rule to warn anyone about any threat ever.


They can and did break the ethical code. My position is that they shouldn’t. I can’t stop them. I can only point out when it happens and hope enough people care about medical ethics.

I’ve learned that too many professionals see the ethical code as, “Eh, it’s not legally binding, no one is really going to do anything and I disagree with it so, I’ll do what I want.” I find that a troubling place to be when it comes to medical ethics.
__________________
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 28th September 2020, 06:46 PM   #1039
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Yes. I also can’t explain why you guys keep digging it....
You just keep telling yourself that if it helps.
Stacyhs is online now   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 1st October 2020, 01:51 PM   #1040
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,119
On CNN, Dr. Frank Fortunati, Medical Director at Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, while not diagnosing Trump, says Trump is cruel and emotionally abusive. As to the debate, he also says Trump was projecting onto Biden his own actions or lack of action regarding the pandemic.
Stacyhs is online now   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 10:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.