Cont: Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

[theprestige]

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

This has now been addressed.

 

[Bob001]

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

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

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

 

[theprestige]

Thanks.

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

I actually cited evidence that would change my mind.

I don't understand your complaint.

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

 

[xjx388]

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

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

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks.

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

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

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

You can't tell the difference?

See my above post.

 

[xjx388]

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



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

That’s not it at all. The analogy is ludicrous. It’s like you aren’t listening to what I’m actually saying.

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

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

So we have professionals saying a human they have never met has something clinically wrong with their mind, which they can’t see. I can’t tell if they are saying that on the basis of their bias or on the basis of a sincere concern.

I already know Trump is an incompetent buffoon.

 

[Stacyhs]

I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isn’t true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

I’m getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons we’ve gone round and round about. I can’t understand why so many here fight me on that point.

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

Psychologists and commentators from all ideological camps early converged on a label of narcissistic personality disorder as the condition that “explains” Trump’s behavior. Among those making this assertion are more than 70,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition warning of Trump's potential dangerousness, despite longstanding professional injunctions against "diagnosing" public figures whom experts have not personally examined.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/president-donald-trump

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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ause-his-bad-mental-health-column/1260781001/

 

[jimbob]

I was with you until that bit about 70k mental health officials -that part simply isn’t true. Otherwise, bravo! You have summed up my position quite well when it comes to my view of Trump. Where I disagree is the importance of ethics.

I’m getting huffy about ethics because I manage doctors. It is very important to me that ethics remain a cornerstone of the profession. From a societal view, I would think we all want ethics in medicine. What the Yale Group is doing is a gross violation of ethics for all the reasons we’ve gone round and round about. I can’t understand why so many here fight me on that point.

Because you are missing quite a bit.

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

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

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

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

I actually cited evidence that would change my mind.

I don't understand your complaint.

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

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

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

 

[xjx388]

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

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

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all stuff that you yourself have observed.

 

[xjx388]

Because you are missing quite a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

FBI profilers aren't diagnosing anyone. They are looking at a criminal who has already done violence and looking for patterns that might help capture them or negotiate with them. There are ethical codes in Forensic Psychiatry, too.

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

If professionals have never evaluated the subject personally, how are they arriving at a professional opinion? I don't think you can get around that one.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

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

There is no case to be made for a Duty to Warn in the legal and ethical senses, for example.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Yes, it's called professional judgement.

 

[xjx388]

Yes, it's called professional judgement.

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

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

Does that sound right to you?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

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

Does that sound right to you?

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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

Does that sound right to you?

Big giant logic FAIL.

Try again.

 

[xjx388]

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

It’s an ethical rule. If professionals can use professional judgement to pick and choose which situations ethical rules apply to, it’s a valid comparison.

What do you see as a problem with the scenario?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wow.

 

[xjx388]

Big giant logic FAIL.

Try again.

See my reply above. Spell it out.

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

How does your “professional judgement “ argument account for flawed professional judgements? Couldn’t the Yale Group be making a flawed professional judgement?

 

[xjx388]

Wow.

I’m more than willing to admit when I’ve made an error. I can’t see it. Can you spell it out?