Cont: President Trump: Part 3

[Emily's Cat]

Serious question #1: the Republican legislature has been abominable for the past six years, so the voters have punished them by giving them all the branches of government. Why shouldn't the Democrats try what obviously works?

You're assuming that people who voted for Trump did so because they approve of and support the republican platform. I don't believe this is the case. I think that there was a dislike of the democratic candidate put forth and the message delivered by her throughout the campaign. Which is a substantially different thing.

Serious question #2: If the Democrats follow your and Emily Cat's advice, they basically either allow the Republicans to do whatever they want, or they join the Republicans in their one party rule, pretty much ceding any progressive or liberal ideals. How is this not a terrible plan for Democrats, and for the country as a whole?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dems roll over and do whatever Reps want. I think there's a striking difference between "roll over and give up" and "be contrarian and obstructive so we get revenge on those evil Reps!".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are they claiming a specific diagnosis or suggesting a possible diagnosis?

Does it matter from ethical perspective?

 

[Babbylonian]

Fair point, you are correct.

I do wonder about the ethics of the situation though. Opining publicly on the mental health status of a person who is not their patient, and claiming a specific diagnosis without proper evaluation seems as if it should be a breach of medical ethics.

Unless they are prescribing a course of treatment or attempting to, say, place the person in a locked facility, they're just talking. Medical ethics allow doctors to say all kinds of things and express all kinds of opinions. It doesn't become an ethical issue unless they're purposely lying (as opposed to opining on a diagnosis based on their experience), particularly in an attempt to use their position to harm someone.

Any doctor weighing in on this knows that their opinion is at best incomplete and that they don't have the data to make an actionable diagnosis.

I prescribe a chill pill.

 

[Spindrift]

Does it matter from ethical perspective?

I would think so.

 

[wareyin]

You're assuming that people who voted for Trump did so because they approve of and support the republican platform. I don't believe this is the case. I think that there was a dislike of the democratic candidate put forth and the message delivered by her throughout the campaign. Which is a substantially different thing.

Trump was not the only Republican voted in. The voters also continued Republican majorities in the House, the Senate, and the majority of state governments, not to mention the SCOTUS (yes, I know they didn't vote a conservative in to the Supremes, voters just voted in the guy who said he would keep the SCOTUS dominated by conservatives). Clinton was not the only Democrat who lost an election.

So, the question remains, why not do what obviously works?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dems roll over and do whatever Reps want. I think there's a striking difference between "roll over and give up" and "be contrarian and obstructive so we get revenge on those evil Reps!".

When one party controls all three forms of the Federal Gov't, how much power do you really think the Dems have?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unless they are prescribing a course of treatment or attempting to, say, place the person in a locked facility, they're just talking. Medical ethics allow doctors to say all kinds of things and express all kinds of opinions. It doesn't become an ethical issue unless they're purposely lying (as opposed to opining on a diagnosis based on their experience), particularly in an attempt to use their position to harm someone.

Any doctor weighing in on this knows that their opinion is at best incomplete and that they don't have the data to make an actionable diagnosis.

I prescribe a chill pill.

I would think so.

Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.

 

[Babbylonian]

Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.

Unless they're saying something they know to be false, no, I have no problem with it. If you have some evidence that what they're doing is a violation of either their oaths or established medical standards, you're welcome to present it; I'm open to changing my mind. At this point, though, it seems like you're searching (in the most shallow way possible) for reasons to discount their opinions besides the substance of their concerns and despite the evidence that the current insane occupier of the Oval Office has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he's a compulsive liar who cares for nothing unless it is to his personal advantage.

 

[Stacko]

This is not concerning at all.

A former senior campaign official said Nunberg and his successor, former communications director Jason Miller, were particularly skilled at using alternative media like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, Infowars and the Daily Caller to show Trump positive coverage.

And once they got the stories published, campaign officials with large numbers of Twitter followers would tweet them out.

They would also go to media amplifiers like Fox News hosts and conservative columnists to encourage them to tweet out the story so that they could print out and show a two-page list of tweets that showed that they were steering the message. While Trump still couldn't contain his Twitter-rage with Machado, and ended up tweeting about a mystery sex-tape of the Hillary Clinton surrogate, aides say they dialed back even more posts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When one party controls all three forms of the Federal Gov't, how much power do you really think the Dems have?

I dunno. How much power did Reps have between 2009 and 2011? Were they powerless?

 

[Spindrift]

Neither of you see an ethical issue with a licensed medical professional publicly opining that a public figure has a medical condition and doing so without proper evaluation, especially when it is clear that such an opinion will be used in a political fashion?

In this case, it is mental health professionals leveraging their credibility as experts in order to invalidate the president, and to increase political pressure against the him on the basis of their professional medical opinions.

If they are correct, then they have a responsibility to the country to do so.

From what I've seen no one has made a diagnosis. They couch it in terms, "He's showing signs of x. This thing that he does is often a sign of y." That's not a diagnosis.

However let's be realistic. Unless he is diagnosed by a physician who examines him it doesn't matter, he's not going to be removed because a TV shrink thinks he may have something.

 

[wareyin]

I dunno. How much power did Reps have between 2009 and 2011? Were they powerless?

Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unless they're saying something they know to be false, no, I have no problem with it. If you have some evidence that what they're doing is a violation of either their oaths or established medical standards, you're welcome to present it; I'm open to changing my mind.

It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.

At this point, though, it seems like you're searching (in the most shallow way possible) for reasons to discount their opinions besides the substance of their concerns and despite the evidence that the current insane occupier of the Oval Office has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he's a compulsive liar who cares for nothing unless it is to his personal advantage.

Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.

 

[phiwum]

Serious question #1: the Republican legislature has been abominable for the past six years, so the voters have punished them by giving them all the branches of government. Why shouldn't the Democrats try what obviously works?

Serious question #2: If the Democrats follow your and Emily Cat's advice, they basically either allow the Republicans to do whatever they want, or they join the Republicans in their one party rule, pretty much ceding any progressive or liberal ideals. How is this not a terrible plan for Democrats, and for the country as a whole?

Serious answer #1: because working together when you have common ground is the decent thing to do. .

Serious answer #2: I don't want democrats to vote with republicans unless their interests align. Try to compromise, but there's no reason to capitulate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?

No. Nor do I believe I have implied such a thing. Rather I have said that Democrats should not plan to act the way that Republicans have acted. Planning to be purposefully obstructive in the future as revenge for this election is not a strategy that I support, and it's not a strategy that I think will be effective for Democrats in the long term.

FFS, Republicans have woven their own rope, draped it about their necks, climbed up on the platform, and tied that rope to the cross bar. Democrats shouldn't make plans to hang themselves as well, out of some misguided need for retaliation.

 

[wareyin]

It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.


Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.

Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.

 

[phiwum]

Are you under the impression that Trump will try to work with Democrats they way Obama did with Republicans? Or are you thinking that the Republican party will suddenly be willing to cross the aisle the way Democrats did then?

I think there are a few decent republicans willing to do that, yes. I hope so.

If not, democrats should vote their consciences and oppose partisan bills.

 

[Stacko]

Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.

Fox. No idea originates with Trump. He always takes from something he sees on TV or in a tabloid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Didn't Trump trot out some doctor to claim Clinton had dementia? Or was that Fox News? I didn't find it with a quick search, but this is not the first time a physician has opined on the health of a public figure.

I would find that equally unethical.

 

[wareyin]

Serious answer #1: because working together when you have common ground is the decent thing to do. .

Serious answer #2: I don't want democrats to vote with republicans unless their interests align. Try to compromise, but there's no reason to capitulate.

I simply don't believe that after 6 years of being the party of No, Republicans will now be willing to work with Democrats rather than cram everything they want through since Trump will sign it without even reading it.

Frankly, I think it's pretty naive to think the Republicans will be passing any legislation that remotely aligns with Democratic interests, especially after being rewarded for not doing so for the last 6 years.

 

[Spindrift]

It would be a violation of my professional ethics and standards of practice if I publicly opined as an actuary on an actuarial matter without having done a proper and appropriate analysis of the data in question. I would face professional sanctions and penalties from the Actuarial Board of Conduct. If I were to do so in a fashion that negatively affected the target of that opinion, I could lose my professional standing altogether and be prohibited from doing work as an actuary in the US.

I assume that medical ethics are no less stringent. I could be wrong.


Personally, I am quite inclined to believe that Trump is nuts. But I'm not a medical professional, and it is not unethical for me to say so. I have no professional standing and no implied credibility on this topic.

I'm not necessarily discounting the accuracy of their assessment; I'm questioning the ethics of their public statements.

I found this: https://www.actuary.org/pdf/prof/code_of_conduct.pdf

I don't know if that is appropriate, but please show me where it says that an actuary can't be interviewed by a news source and give their opinion on publicly available information about someone who isn't their client. That is what the medical professionals are doing.