Thursday, September 14, 2017

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and “A Duty to Warn”

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: Robert Jay Lifton and Bill Moyers on “A Duty to Warn”
BillMoyers.com
There will not be a book published this fall more urgent, important, or controversial than The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, the work of 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health experts to assess President Trump's mental health. They had ...

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Harvard Psychiatrist: Trump Is a ‘Sociopath’ and a ‘Very Sick Individual’

1 Share
Harvard Psychiatrist: Trump Is a ‘Sociopath’ and a ‘Very Sick Individual’
AlterNet
… Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. Dodes is a signatory to the much-discussed February 2017 open letter to the New York Times that sought to warn the public about the dangers posed by Donald Trump’s mental health. He is also a 

Friday, August 25, 2017

Will Trump Be the Death of the Goldwater Rule? - The New Yorker | Hundreds of pages of new details on Trump-Russia dossier and Pee Pee Tape are on verge of being released - Thursday August 24th, 2017 at 9:30 AM - Palmer Report

 
It was meant to prevent psychiatrists from politicizing their authority. But now it’s muzzling them in the midst of a vital public debate.
Source: Will Trump Be the Death of the Goldwater Rule? | The New Yorker

Will Trump Be the Death of the Goldwater Rule?

1 Share
At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Donald Trump remarked, of his decision to take on the Presidency, “Most people think I’m crazy to have done this. And I think they’re right.” A strange consensus does appear to be forming around Trump’s mental state. Following Trump’s unhinged Phoenix speech, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, said on CNN, “I really question his … fitness to be in this office,” describing the address as “scary and disturbing” and characterizing Trump as a “complete intellectual, moral, and ethical void.” Last week, following Trump’s doubling-down on blaming “many sides” for white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican of Tennessee, said that the President “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs” to lead the country. Last Friday, Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California, introduced a resolution urging a medical and psychiatric evaluation of the President, pointing to an “alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties.” Lofgren asked, in a press release, “Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?” The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the President’s mental health. The principle known as the “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination, as Jane Mayer wrote in this magazine in May. After losing the 1964 Presidential election, Senator Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact magazine for defamation after it published a special issue in which psychiatrists declared him “severely paranoid” and “unfit” for the Presidency. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit, he must demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”; a key piece of evidence in the Goldwater case was Fact’s disregard of a letter from the American Psychiatric Association warning that any survey of psychiatrists who hadn’t clinically examined Goldwater was invalid. The Supreme Court denied Fact’s cert petition, which hoped to vindicate First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press. But Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, writing, “The public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny. Extravagant, reckless statements and even claims which may not be true seem to me an inevitable and perhaps essential part of the process by which the voting public informs itself of the qualities of a man who would be President.” These statements, of course, resonate today. President Trump has unsuccessfully pursued many defamation lawsuits over the years, leading him to vow during the 2016 campaign to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” (One of his most recent suits, dismissed in 2016, concerned a Univision executive’s social-media posting of side-by-side photos of Trump and Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; Trump alleged that the posting falsely accused him of inciting similar acts.) The left-leaning psychiatric community was shamed by the Fact episode for having confused political objection and medical judgment, and came under pressure from the American Medical Association, whose members had largely supported Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson. The A.P.A. adopted the Goldwater rule in 1973; Dr. Alan Stone, my colleague at Harvard Law School, was at the time the only member of the A.P.A.’s board to oppose the rule, as a denial of free speech “and of every psychiatrist's God-given right to make a fool of himself or herself.” Stone, who has served on the A.P.A.’s appeals board, told me that a few members over the years have been sanctioned or warned for Goldwater-rule violations, but that the A.P.A. eventually gave up enforcing it, because of the difficulty of providing due process to the accused. The psychoanalyst Justin Frank, a clinical professor at George Washington University, simply resigned from the A.P.A. in 2003 before publishing his book “Bush on the Couch.” He went on to write “Obama on the Couch,” and is now at work on “Trump on the Couch.” Frank says that the Goldwater rule forces psychiatrists to neglect a duty to share their knowledge with fellow-citizens. “I think it’s fear of being shunned by colleagues,” he told me. “It’s not about ethics.” Had he examined Trump, of course, he would be bound by confidentiality not to speak about him. But Frank 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. The A.P.A. reaffirmed and arguably expanded the Goldwater rule in March, stating that it applies not only to a “diagnosis” but also to “an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry.” The upshot is the attempted removal of more than thirty-seven thousand A.P.A. members from a key public conversation, during a moment when their knowledge and authority might aid the public in responsibly assessing the President. The other major mental-health professional organization, the American Psychological Association, with double the membership, also reconfirmed its version of the Goldwater rule. The much smaller American Psychoanalytic Association told its more than three thousand members last month to feel free to comment about political figures—a reprieve more symbolic than practical, since many members concurrently belong to the American Psychiatric Association. Some assume that simply opting out of voluntary membership in a professional organization frees a person to speak. But versions of the Goldwater rule exist in state licensing-board standards for psychologists and physicians. Some states adopt wholesale the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles as their standard of conduct for licensed psychologists, or have provisions warning that physicians can face disciplinary action for violating a professional medical association’s code of ethics. Dr. Leonard Glass, who practices in one such state, Massachusetts, observed last month, in the Boston Globe, that even if nobody has actually lost his or her license for violating the Goldwater rule, “it is not trivial to be reported to your licensing board for an ethics violation.” This restraint on speech may violate the First Amendment, because, by speaking, practitioners stand to attract state censure, not just disapproval by private organizations. (Disclosure: As a lawyer, I have considered a potential lawsuit based on this First Amendment claim.) It is especially odd to see a muzzling of speech about political figures and elected officials when it is routine for mental-health experts in legal cases to offer opinions based on information from files, without an in-person examination—for example, to help assess how dangerous a person is. A congressional bill introduced in April proposes establishing a commission to oversee “Presidential capacity,” laying down a path that the Twenty-fifth Amendment allows for involuntary removal of a President. Section 4 of that Amendment provides that a congressionally appointed body can determine that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Psychiatrists’ participation in this constitutional process will depend on their appetite for professional opprobrium. After Trump’s “fire and fury” remarks about North Korea, earlier this month, Dr. Bandy Lee, a professor of psychiatry at Yale Medical School, sent her second letter about Trump to all members of Congress, warning that his “severe emotional impediments” pose “a grave threat to international security.” Four colleagues joined her this time, but, she told me, “In the beginning, I was trying to write letters to Congress members and I couldn’t get anyone to sign on, even though nobody disagreed.” Her book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” forthcoming in October, collects essays by more than a dozen mental-health experts and makes the case that the Trump Presidency is an emergency that not only allows but may even require psychiatrists to depart from the Goldwater rule. Seeking contributors, Dr. Lee was mindful that most colleagues would be nervous walking the tightrope, so she approached prominent writers who might have enough stature to withstand criticism, including Philip Zimbardo, Judith Herman, Robert Jay Lifton, and Gail Sheehy. (Next month, Dr. Lee will have a closed meeting with several as-yet-unnamed lawmakers to advise them on how Congress might convene mental-health professionals to review the President’s state of mind.) Many Presidents in our history appear to have served while managing various forms of mental illness, including depression, anxiety, social phobia, and bipolar disorder. President Ronald Reagan’s staff, for example, worried about signs of dementia. Concerned about Richard Nixon’s paranoia and heavy drinking in his last days in office, his Defense Secretary is claimed to have told the Joint Chiefs to disregard any White House military orders. But Trump is the only President to be the subject of sustained public discussion about his mental competence and fitness for office. The Constitution contemplates, by virtue of the First Amendment, that we may freely raise concerns about elected officials, and also that in the extreme circumstance envisioned in the Twenty-fifth Amendment, medical professionals would be free to help us understand whether the President can fulfill his duties. If those who know most are the least free to speak, neither Amendment can function properly. The Goldwater rule was an overreaction to psychiatrists wielding their professional badge to do politics. Today, the profession risks protecting itself from the taint of politics by withholding expertise from a vital public debate—a situation that seems no less irresponsible.
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·

Hundreds of pages of new details on Trump-Russia dossier and Pee Pee Tape are on verge of being released

1 Share
Over the past year, large chunks of the infamous Trump-Russia dossier have been proven, and not one word of it has been disproven, yet the mainstream media has still continued to refer to it as “unverified” for no good reason. Now it turns out we’re on the verge of getting hundreds of pages of additional details and supporting evidence in relation to that dossier. The Trump-Russia dossier was assembled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele at the behest of an opposition research company named Fusion GPS. It alleged that the Russian government spent years cultivating Donald Trump while also building up blackmail material on him (including the mythical “Pee Pee Tape”), and that the Trump campaign and Russia actively colluded to rig the election in Trump’s favor. Partly because the dossier was so widely and baselessly antagonized by the mainstream media, thus creating the false perception that it had been “debunked” or discredited, it’s taken until now for Congress to get around to formally addressing it. But that changed in a big way this week. Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in what ended up being ten hours of closed hearings on Monday. The upshot is that the company firmly stands behind the research in the Trump-Russia dossier. Now the public has begun calling for transcripts of the testimony to be released. Simpson has said he has no problem with his testimony being released. Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican Chair of that committee, was asked about it during a town hall tonight. Rachel Maddow ended up airing the relevant portion of that town hall during her MSNBC show. Grassley affirmed that he’ll have the committee vote on whether to release the transcripts, and he stated that barring any hang-ups, he doesn’t see any reason why he won’t vote “yes” himself. The committee has eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, so it would only take Grassley and one other Republican voting “yes” (along with all of the Democrats) for the transcripts to be released.
This means we’re on the verge of getting our hands on ten hours of testimony about the Trump-Russia dossier, the Pee Pee tape, and everything else alleged in it. Ten hours of testimony roughly translates to around five hundred pages of transcripts. And so unless Chuck Grassley goes back on his word, we’re about to learn what the real story is behind everything that the dossier says.
Help fund Palmer Report:

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Who cares about the American Psychiatric Association (is it just a "professional" branch of the FBI?!) and its "rules or no-rules"?! Just disband the little nincompoops!

The American Psychiatric Association was run and governed by the FBI informant at its very top (its former “President”, Carol Bernstein). It degenerated and degraded into the total and complete irrelevance and impotence in scientific and the organizational matters. Very logical and even unavoidable outcome in these circumstances… 

1 Share
Image result for Goldwater rule
The American Psychiatry is nothing without its Psychoanalytic tradition and its depth. Psychopharmacology does not explain the human soul, and it does not even attempt to. Psychoanalysis does not explain it either, but at least it does attempt to, and it searches for its “royal roads”, although very often it is simply lost on the old side streets. At least the Psychoanalysis retained its intellectual independence, as exemplified in its stand on the so called “Goldwater rule“.
American Psychiatry is in a deep crisis, and the American Psychiatric Association, a bureaucratic Stalinist institution, which lost its touch with reality a long time ago, is the part, the parcel, and one of the many reasons for this crisis. Apparently, as I have good reasons to believe, at least until very recently, the American Psychiatric Association was led, run, and governed by the FBI informant at its very top (its former “President”, Carol Bernstein, who is nothing more than the mediocre, treacherous, double-dealing nincompoop, hungry for power). It degenerated and degraded into the total and complete irrelevance and impotence in scientific and the organizational matters. Very logical and even unavoidable outcome in these circumstances. 
Investigate this in depth. Clean up and reform the American Psychiatry and the APA (American Psychiatric Association). 
___________________________
Links: 

Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says … – The Verge

1 Share

The Verge
Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says …
The Verge
The American Psychoanalytic Association, a leading psychiatry group in the US, told its 3500 members that they can comment on the mental state of politicians, …
Leading medical group tells members it’s OK to discuss Trump’s …The Independent
Donald Trump Mental Health: Psychiatry Group Says Ok to Talk …TIME
Crazy Talk: Cable News Cleared To Talk Trump’s Mental HealthForbes
The Atlantic –TPM –Breitbart News –STAT
all 32 news articles »

Psychiatric Group Tells Members It’s OK to Break Silence on Trump’s Bizarre Behavior – Common Dreams

1 Share
Psychiatric Group Tells Members It’s OK to Break Silence on Trump’s Bizarre Behavior
Common Dreams
As President Donald Trump continues to behave bizarrely and erratically—attacking his own attorney general, launching into a political tirade during a speech to Boy Scouts, bringing his 11-year-old son into the burgeoning Russia controversy—a 

Donald Trump’s Mental Health Is Ok To Comment On, Psychoanalysts’ Group Tells Members

American Psychiatric Association – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from The Atlantic

The Mind of Donald Trump

The AtlanticMay 16, 2016
In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian, even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy …
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from New York Daily News

Psychology group drops rule banning members from commenting …

New York Daily News14 minutes ago
Members of the American Psychoanalytic Association have been … The American Psychiatric Association, a separate group with 37,000 …
Evaluating Trump’s Psyche In Public
In-DepthThe Atlantic6 minutes ago
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from American Thinker

How the Left Hijacked the American Psychiatric Association and …

American ThinkerJul 16, 2017
“The Pentagon is working to delay the July 1 deadline to fully implement the Obama-initiated policy that one year ago lifted the ban on …
Read the whole story

· ·

Goldwater rule – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for Goldwater rule from New York Daily News

Psychology group drops rule banning members from commenting …

New York Daily News13 minutes ago
The “Goldwater rule” stems from the 1964 Presidential election. “Fact” magazine at the time polled more than 12,000 psychiatrists on whether …

American Psychiatry – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for American Psychiatry from The Verge

Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says

The Verge25 minutes ago
The American Psychoanalytic Association, a leading psychiatry group in the US, told its 3,500 members that they can comment on the mental …

Experts Move to Halt Crisis in US Psychiatry

1 Share
An expert panel has released a new report containing recommendations to rectify the severe shortage of psychiatrists and the dearth of mental health services in the United States.
Released by the National Council Medical Director Institute, which advises the National Council for Behavioral Health on issues strongly related to clinical practice, the report, The Psychiatric Crisis: Causes and Solutions, contains a wide-ranging set of recommendations that touch on every area of the specialty, including training, funding, and models of care delivery.
Lead authors Joe Parks, MD, medical director, National Council for Behavioral Health, and Patrick Runnels, MD, co-chair, Medical Director Institute, discussed the report’s recommendations at a press briefing on March 28, where they were joined by Saul M. Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The number of psychiatrists is plummeting – down by 10% from 2003 to 2013. The average age of practicing psychiatrists is the mid-50s, compared to the mid-40s for other specialties, said Dr Parks.
Furthermore, approximately 55% of counties across the United States currently have no psychiatrist, and 77% report a severe shortage – a situation that is partially due to an increase in demand.
“People want psychiatric services. They know treatment works, and it’s less stigmatizing than it used to be, so people are more willing to accept and seek treatment,” said Dr Parks.
But their search is often in vain. Two thirds of primary care physicians report having trouble getting psychiatric services for patients, so patients often end up in the emergency department.
“There has been a 42% increase in patients going to ERs for psychiatric services in the past 3 years, but most of them aren’t staffed with psychiatrists,” Dr Parks noted.
“So people end up stuck in the ERs for hours and at times days – two to three times as long as for general medical conditions.”
To make matters worse, some hospitals are closing inpatient psychiatric units because they cannot find psychiatrists to staff and run them.
The lack of services and long wait times for these scarce services are taking a toll on patients.
“These are people burdened and suffering from anxiety, from depression. Some of them feel suicidal, and some of them have hallucinations,” said Dr Parks.
Psychiatrist Burnout
Psychiatry has not received the increase in support that some other specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology, have. Psychiatrists also do not get the same ancillary staff to assist them in tasks such as arranging patient follow-up, he added.
In many cases, psychiatrists are forced to receive reimbursement that is lower than usual. “About 40% of psychiatrists are in cash-only services. Psychiatrists are rushed, and they burn out and leave the profession earlier,” said Dr Parks.
He described the current mental health care delivery system as “old fashioned,” noting that it “has not kept up with modern, data-driven, evidence-based technologies and has certainly not taken advantage of some of the new, innovative social media ways we can reach out and touch patients.”
Another “looming potential problem” is immigration. Some 50% of new psychiatry trainees are foreign medical graduates, and changes in visa requirements by the Trump administration could add to the workforce problems, he said.
If nothing is done about the psychiatrist shortage, the demand for psychiatry is expected to outstrip supply by 25% by 2025.
Becoming a psychiatrist requires 12,000 hours of training, said Dr Levin, who heads the APA, the largest psychiatric association in the world.
According to Dr Runnels, medical students are more likely to opt for a psychiatry residency if the medical school’s psychiatric department offers a highly-rated and relatively long rotation.
“That’s hugely important, and medical schools need to start working on that,” he said. He added that currently, many training “milestones” are “fuzzily or not well-defined.”
Training does not adequately address team-based collaborative care or supervision of clinicians from other disciplines, for example, physician assistants, said Dr Runnels.
“Medication-assisted treatment for addictions is definitely something that most residents get very little exposure to,” he added.
New Models of Care
The expert panel that developed the report included representatives from all areas of healthcare. In addition to psychiatrists, it included CEOs of healthcare organizations, primary and managed care representatives, academic experts, and those representing related professions, such as nursing.
The panel was tasked to develop recommendations that were “specific and actionable – not broad, vague, pie in the sky but things that a payer could do, things that government could do, things that individual psychiatrists could do, and things that the professional organizations could do to relieve this emergency,” said Dr Parks.
The expert panel recommended that the care delivery system be updated so that psychiatrists would operate more as expert consultants and work in teams, said Dr Parks.
“So they would do the essential things only psychiatrists can do and delegate other parts of care and follow-up for patients who are stable, or services that can be provided by other professionals, such as psychiatric nurses or perhaps physician assistants.”
The panel also recommended new and advanced forms of treatment, such as collaborative care and telepsychiatry.
“We should all be advocating for new, innovative models of care, such as telepsychiatry, which can increase access to specialty psychiatric services across the country,” said Dr Levin.
“We would love to see more telepsychiatry, and we would love to see the payment system actually pay for it,” he added. However, he said, it is important to ensure that patients who receive treatment remotely are “always safe” and that if they begin to show signs and symptoms of distress on the psychiatry call, “we are able to get them help very quickly.”
The APA has a toolkit to help educate psychiatrists and other healthcare providers on how to practice telepsychiatry, said Dr Levin. “I think we all see this as one of the ways we are going to be practicing well into the future.”
The panel also wants to see burdensome governmental rules removed. For example, said Dr Parks, a psychiatrist who provides telepsychiatry services in eight states now has to be licensed in all eight states.
As for medical education, the task force recommended that all residents receive integrated care experience and be placed in a range of different settings to broaden their experience with medication-assisted treatment programs and collaboration with other professions.
Cost-Saving Investment
All of this requires additional funding, which the panel also addressed.
“We are aware that overall, the healthcare system is looking to cut costs, so we want to point out that our call for increased funding for psychiatry was not something we took lightly,” said Dr Runnels.
“However, we want people to understand that our call for increased funding is about helping to save money overall.”
He pointed out that the use of psychiatry services leads to overall reductions in spending on healthcare.
“We believe insurance companies are leaving money on the table by not adequately funding those services.”
Some of the report’s specific recommendations include the following:
  • Removing barriers to integrated care: Fund technical assistance programs that help develop alternatives to fee-for-service reimbursement models, because chronic physical conditions are known to improve when mental health conditions are managed, particularly among high-risk populations.
  • Cutting red tape: Streamline administrative paperwork so that physicians can spend more time with patients and that information exchanges between physicians are more attuned to the patients’ needs.
  • Changing how psychiatrists are paid: Create awareness about behavioral health’s role in the total cost of care, then shift from fee-for-service arrangements to bundled payments to increase the quality of care and reduce the overall cost of care.
  • Improving confidentiality regulations: Although the recently revised 42 CFR Part 2 confidentiality regulations are advances, they burden psychiatrists by restricting information regarding treatment of substance use disorder, sometimes keeping patients and their families in the dark to protect psychiatrists.
The authors of the report made other recommendations specific to government and payers, healthcare treatment, and advocacy organizations, as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other stakeholders. The full report is available for download.
Read the whole story

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

American Psychoanalytic Association vs apa – Google Search

1 Share

Dealing With American Psychiatry’s Gag Rule

Psychiatric Times (blog)Jul 20, 2017
Dr Glass is a psychoanalyst and Associate Professor of Psychiatry (Part-time) … Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics … for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has …

Diagnosing Trump: How Psychoanalysis Lost Its Voice

Huffington PostMay 4, 2017
… mental health professionals even outside the purview of the APA that much of … Unlike in the U.S., the cross-pollination of psychoanalysis, social reform, … theorist and one-time head of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, … the Goldwater Rule or our own historical reluctance to share our clinical …
Story image for American Psychoanalytic Association vs apa from Scientific American

Psychiatrists Debate Weighing in on Trump’s Mental Health

Scientific AmericanFeb 15, 2017
On Tuesday 35 U.S. psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers … and director of the Seattle Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, says she was … how a person’s mental health may affect other people and his or her ability to perform. … the association pointed to a letter published by APApresident Maria …
Mental Health Professionals Warn About Trump
Highly CitedNew York TimesFeb 15, 2017
Story image for American Psychoanalytic Association vs apa from Psychiatric Times

Take Two Pills and …

Psychiatric TimesJan 19, 2017
… ways to improve self-awareness in addition to psychoanalysis. … later, and President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1981.

American Psychoanalytic Association – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for American Psychoanalytic Association from The Independent
The Independent

Psychiatry Group Tells Members They Can Discuss President …

TIME12 minutes ago
In an email, the American Psychoanalytic Association told its 3,500 members they don’t have to abide by the Goldwater Rule, which states that …
Story image for American Psychoanalytic Association from STAT

Psychiatry group tells members they can defy ‘Goldwater rule’ and …

STAT5 hours ago
The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents …

Donald Trump Mental Health: Psychiatry Group Says Ok to Talk

1 Share
A psychiatry group told its members they can comment on the mental health of President Trump—going against the longstanding so-called Goldwater Rule, a self-imposed code that prevents the psychiatry community from commenting on the mental health of public figures.
In an email, the American Psychoanalytic Association told its 3,500 members they don’t have to abide by the Goldwater Rule, which states that mental health professionals should not discuss the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated, Stat News reported on Tuesday.
“We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly,” Prudence Gourguechon, past president of the association, told Stat News.
The debate over whether health professionals can comment on Trump’s mental faculties has raged since the president was elected, with several mental health experts arguing that the Goldwater Rule needs more flexibility regards to Trump. An online petition that calls Trump “mentally ill,” started by psychiatrist John Gartner, has received more than 55,000 signatures since April.
Despite the note from the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychiatric Association—which has more than 37,000 members — said on Tuesday that it continues to stand by the Goldwater Rule.
The Goldwater Rule stems from a controversy in 1964, when Fact magazine reported that more than 1,000 mental health professionals said they believed that then-Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater was not mentally fit for office. Goldwater successfully sued Fact for libel after he lost the election, leading to the rule’s addition to the American Psychiatric Association’s ethics guidelines.
The American Psychoanalytic Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Psychiatry Group Tells Members They Can Discuss President Trump’s Mental Health – TIME

1 Share
Psychiatry Group Tells Members They Can Discuss President Trump’s Mental Health
TIME
In an email, the American Psychoanalytic Association told its 3,500 members they don’t have to abide by the Goldwater Rule, which states that mental health professionals should not discuss the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated, …

American Psychiatric Association – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from The Atlantic

The Mind of Donald Trump

The AtlanticMay 16, 2016
In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian, even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy …
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from New York Daily News

Psychology group drops rule banning members from commenting …

New York Daily News14 minutes ago
Members of the American Psychoanalytic Association have been … The American Psychiatric Association, a separate group with 37,000 …
Evaluating Trump’s Psyche In Public
In-DepthThe Atlantic6 minutes ago
Story image for American Psychiatric Association from American Thinker

How the Left Hijacked the American Psychiatric Association and …

American ThinkerJul 16, 2017
“The Pentagon is working to delay the July 1 deadline to fully implement the Obama-initiated policy that one year ago lifted the ban on …
Read the whole story

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Goldwater rule – Google Search

1 Share
Story image for Goldwater rule from New York Daily News

Psychology group drops rule banning members from commenting …

New York Daily News13 minutes ago
The “Goldwater rule” stems from the 1964 Presidential election. “Fact” magazine at the time polled more than 12,000 psychiatrists on whether …
Read the whole story

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Who cares about the American Psychiatric (not Psychoanalytic, please read the previous posts and news) Association, its “ethics committee”, it’s “Goldwater rule”, its prescriptions and its proscriptions, its stupidity, and its little nincompoopy membership?! Just disband them, they push themselves more and more into the utter irrelevance.

1 Share
Who cares about the American Psychiatric (not Psychoanalytic, please read the previous posts and news) Association, its “ethics committee”, its “Goldwater rule”, its prescriptions and its proscriptions, its stupidity, and its little nincompoopy membership?! Just disband them, they push themselves more and more into the utter irrelevance.
American Psychoanalytic Association, a much more authoritative body, said very clearly: discussions on political matters, including the subject of the Presidents mental health issues, is not a matter of clinical practice, and therefore cannot be regulated by the ethical rules pertaining to the clinical practice.

Newsweek
It’s Not OK to Discuss Donald Trump’s Mental Health, Says Biggest US Psychiatric Group
Newsweek
The American Psychological Association, which represents more than 115,000 psychologicalprofessionals, has also expressed support for the rule. Its former president Susan McDaniel wrote to the New York Times in 2016 that “neither psychiatrists nor …
Evaluating Trump’s Psyche in PublicThe Atlantic
Psychiatry group tells members they can discuss Trump’s mental health – StatSTAT
APA Remains Committed to Supporting Goldwater Rule – American Psychiatric AssociationAmerican Psychiatric Association
American Psychoanalytic Association –Wikipedia
all 43 news articles »
July 6th, 2017
Dear Colleagues,
A poll of the Executive Councilors was undertaken June 19-23 after the Austin annual
meeting. Executive Councilors were asked to comment on two things: whether they
endorse the policy that APsaA as an organization speaks to sociopolitical issues only, not
about specific political figures; and whether they support a poll of the membership to
further assess whether the Association should take a public stance on persons.
The poll yielded the following results: 78% of Councilors replied; 100% endorsed the
policy that APsaA as an organization will speak to issues only, not about specific political
figures; 79% opposed a poll of the membership.
The Executive Committee reviewed these results today and decided based on the data not
to survey the membership. APsaA will continue to speak to issues about which it has
something relevant to say.
However, it is important to note that members of APsaA are free to comment about
political figures as individuals. The American Psychiatric Association’s ethical stance
on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political
commentary by its individual members an ethical matter. APsaA’s ethical code
concerns clinical practice, not public commentary.
Recent political discussion within our APsaA online communities has broadened to include
diverse opinion. A respectful openness to different points of views is a welcome and
encouraging shift in the direction of the Community Vision that Council unanimously
endorsed in Austin.
Read the whole story

· ·

APA Remains Committed to Supporting Goldwater Rule

1 Share
Today, APA’s Ethics Committee issued an opinion that reaffirms our organization’s support for “The Goldwater Rule,” which asserts that psychiatrists should not give professional opinions about the mental state of individuals that they have not personally and thoroughly evaluated. The opinion from the Ethics Committee clarifies the ethical principle of the rule and answers several questions that have recently cropped up surrounding its use.
APA member psychiatrists have abided by the Goldwater Rule since it was implemented in 1973. It is so named because of a controversy that emerged during the 1964 presidential election, when Fact magazine published the results of a survey in which 12,356 psychiatrists were asked whether Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit for the presidency. Out of 2,417 total responses to the survey, 1,189 said that Goldwater was unfit for office. Goldwater eventually won a defamation suit against Fact.
In its opinion, APA’s Ethics Committee asserts that while it is perfectly fine for a psychiatrist to share their expertise about psychiatric issues in general, it is unethical to offer a professional opinion about an individual without conducting an examination. The committee clarified that the rule applies to all professional opinions offered by psychiatrists, not just diagnoses. For example, saying an individual does not have a mental disorder would also constitute a professional opinion.
Three main points form the rationale for the opinion:
  1. When a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc. of a public figure without consent, that psychiatrist has violated the principle that psychiatric evaluations be conducted with consent or authorization.
  2. Offering a professional opinion on an individual that a psychiatrist has not examined is a departure from established methods of examination, which require careful study of medical history and first-hand examination of the patient. Such behavior compromises both the integrity of the psychiatrist and the profession.
  3. When psychiatrists offer medical opinions about an individual they have not examined, they have the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness.
I touched on these points in my blog post from June of 2016 on the Goldwater Rule, but our Ethics Committee goes into far greater detail with the opinion it offered today. The Committee even offers rebuttals to the some of the most commonly heard arguments against the Goldwater Rule, including concerns centered on freedom of speech and civic duty; professional opinions or psychological profiles solicited by courts or law enforcement officials for forensic cases; and the Tarasoff Doctrine, which states that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
I urge you to take a moment to read the full opinion from the Ethics Committee. It is a thorough and well-reasoned explanation on why the Goldwater Rule is more important than ever. The complexity of today’s media environment demands that we take special care when speaking publicly about mental health issues, particularly when what we say has the potential to damage not only our professional integrity, but the trust we share with our patients, and their confidence in our abilities as physicians.
Read the whole story

· ·

It's Not OK to Discuss Donald Trump's Mental Health, Says Biggest US Psychiatric Group - Newsweek

1 Share

Newsweek



It's Not OK to Discuss Donald Trump's Mental Health, Says Biggest US Psychiatric Group
Newsweek
The American Psychological Association, which represents more than 115,000 psychologicalprofessionals, has also expressed support for the rule. Its former president Susan McDaniel wrote to the New York Times in 2016 that “neither psychiatrists nor ...
Evaluating Trump's Psyche in PublicThe Atlantic
Psychiatry group tells members they can discuss Trump's mental health - StatSTAT
APA Remains Committed to Supporting Goldwater Rule - American Psychiatric AssociationAmerican Psychiatric Association
American Psychoanalytic Association -Wikipedia
all 43 news articles »