President Trump on the Psychiatrist's Couch again

[Gun Nut]

If one is following the DSM-5, diagnoses must be made on the basis of personal interview, not someone's public image or reputation.

so he's just playing a psychopath on TV? How is that materially different, when it comes to public servants?

One of those things results in a formal diagnosis, and the other does not.

that is not a material difference.. that is a rather immaterial one (a technicality, as it were).
It's like when a ballplayer hits it out of the park, but the scoreboard for some reason never updates.... the crowd does not begin to question the homerun they just witnessed.

 

[Politesse]

One of those things results in a formal diagnosis, and the other does not.

that is not a material difference.. that is a rather immaterial one (a technicality, as it were).
It's like when a ballplayer hits it out of the park, but the scoreboard for some reason never updates.... the crowd does not begin to question the homerun they just witnessed.

Diagnoses are pretty important if you're hoping to take legal action of any sort. Such as invoking certain constitutional provisions.

 

[Rhea]

The constitution does not require a diagnosis. Only symptoms. It only says he needs to be unfit.

 

[ZiprHead]

If one is following the DSM-5, diagnoses must be made on the basis of personal interview, not someone's public image or reputation.

Not necessarily.

Psychiatric observation: an unavoidable requirement in caregiving

Every branch of caregiving requires that its practitioners pay attention to the patient; however,this requirement takes on another dimension in psychiatry in which attitudes, facial expressions, words and silence each carry their own meaning in the psychiatric symptomology (semantics). In nursing, observation serves a different purpose. Above all, it allows nurses to gain a better understanding of the patient and his reactions in order to determine the cause of his suffering. Awareness
helps the nurse determine where and how to react to assist the patient dealing with a mental illness and its consequences. In addition, being on the lookout for manifestations of mental illness also helps the nurse protect herself from an unexpected outburst of violence. Observing the first signs of exacerbation or frustration is critical to avoid becoming a victim of violence as mentally ill patients are often vulnerable to these sentiments or overwhelmed by their pathology.

Objectives of observation in psychiatry

As in other branches of caregiving, the goals of psychiatric observation are:
- Understanding the patient’s situation;
- Identifying signs of pathology;
- Trying to identify the causes of that pathology;
- Detecting and recognizing the patient’s suffering in order to plan customized interventions;
- Following up on the patient’s reaction to the treatment;
- Developing a therapeutic plan;
- Monitoring its application and the evolution of the patient.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9d46/edb813d08a07d1f18dc38e594930db2069d3.pdf

 

[braces_for_impact]

The Goldwater rule, as it is known, is somewhat controversial.

Feeling a sense of professional responsibility, Lee organized a conference with some of the nation’s leading mental health professionals. The meeting served as a forum for a “rigorous” discussion about whether they had a duty to warn the public about the concerns they held privately.

Out of the conference came “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” a book edited by Lee and originally published in 2017.

The publication of the book was controversial, as critics accused the authors of breaking the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater rule,” which says it’s unethical to offer a professional opinion on a public figure unless you’ve personally conducted an exam on them.

But Lee rejects those claims, saying the APA has twisted the rule’s original meaning and rendered it a “gag rule” aimed at “silencing professionals.”

 

[Keith&Co.]

Diagnoses are pretty important if you're hoping to take legal action of any sort. Such as invoking certain constitutional provisions.

But the 25th Amendment, like Impeachment, is a political action.

Just says if the politicians decide this guy cannot be President, nothing about obtaining 'the advice of qualified chirurgien, alienist, or head-shrinker.'

 

[Kusa]

 

[Politesse]

Diagnoses are pretty important if you're hoping to take legal action of any sort. Such as invoking certain constitutional provisions.

But the 25th Amendment, like Impeachment, is a political action.

Just says if the politicians decide this guy cannot be President, nothing about obtaining 'the advice of qualified chirurgien, alienist, or head-shrinker.'

Betcha lots of money the Supreme Court would not agree with your interpretation.

 

[ideologyhunter]

One can only imagine what the inner circle hears from Trump, considering the sludge that comes out of his yapper in chopper talks. Love the anonymous source who described the aftermath of Trump's genius moment of proposing a nuclear bomb set off inside a hurricane: "You could have heard a gnat fart in the room." Assuming we survive this man's presidency, there will be hundreds of horrible, sinister, freakishly wondrous revelations of just what this man did/said between bouts of tweeting & TV watching.

 

[Horatio Parker]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...alignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really

John Gartner, Ph.D., is a psychologist who taught at Johns Hopkins University Medical School for 28 years. He says yes, the president has malignant narcissism, as follows in his chapter in the book Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018):

“Trump suffers from malignant narcissism, a diagnosis [that is] far more toxic and dangerous than mere narcissistic personality disorder because it combines narcissism with three other severely pathological components: paranoia, sociopathy, and sadism. When combined, this perfect storm of psychopathology defines the ‘quintessence of evil,’ according to Fromm, the closest thing psychiatry has to describing a true human monster.”7

On the other hand, in February 2017, soon after Trump began his presidency, the psychiatrist who wrote the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders in the DSM-5 manual for mental health professionals, Allen Frances, said “No.” He points out that there are two threshold criteria (significant distress and/or impairment) for the diagnosis of all personality disorders, and that the president does not meet either one, so he does not even have narcissistic personality disorder itself, let alone the disorder of malignant narcissism.

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Diagnoses are pretty important if you're hoping to take legal action of any sort. Such as invoking certain constitutional provisions.

But the 25th Amendment, like Impeachment, is a political action.

Just says if the politicians decide this guy cannot be President, nothing about obtaining 'the advice of qualified chirurgien, alienist, or head-shrinker.'

Betcha lots of money the Supreme Court would not agree with your interpretation.

Based on what...? What do you see in the Amendment that makes it a matter for registered doctors?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

Doctors can discuss what, for example, paranoia is.

They can, as voters, express concerns about something the shitgibbon does.

They should not, as mental health professionals, point to something he does and call it paranoia. Not without an actual examination. THen they shouldn't comment at all on their patient.

The rest of us, not being mental health professionals, can say that the President is as crazy as a librarian chasing a howler monkey through the Vatican on Easter without fear of violating any ethics.
Except for that GOP insisting that we respect the pres, despite 8 years of 'Not My President' setting the example.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...alignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really

John Gartner, Ph.D., is a psychologist who taught at Johns Hopkins University Medical School for 28 years. He says yes, the president has malignant narcissism, as follows in his chapter in the book Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018):

“Trump suffers from malignant narcissism, a diagnosis [that is] far more toxic and dangerous than mere narcissistic personality disorder because it combines narcissism with three other severely pathological components: paranoia, sociopathy, and sadism. When combined, this perfect storm of psychopathology defines the ‘quintessence of evil,’ according to Fromm, the closest thing psychiatry has to describing a true human monster.”7

On the other hand, in February 2017, soon after Trump began his presidency, the psychiatrist who wrote the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders in the DSM-5 manual for mental health professionals, Allen Frances, said “No.” He points out that there are two threshold criteria (significant distress and/or impairment) for the diagnosis of all personality disorders, and that the president does not meet either one, so he does not even have narcissistic personality disorder itself, let alone the disorder of malignant narcissism.

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

This is complicated. I remember Sen. Dennis "The Fiddler" Hastert making a diagnosis of Terri Schiavo based on a edited video.

It can be said that Trump has enough public exposure that psychologists can get a much better view as to his mental capacity. After all, President Trump managed to turn an innocuous gaffe into a full blown, potentially illegal, scandal. Who does that?! Trump does.

That said, the mere fact that recording devices of any kind have been banned from the White House for years now is definitely an indication that Donald Trump is not suited to be a dog catcher, much less the President.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

Doctors can discuss what, for example, paranoia is.

They can, as voters, express concerns about something the shitgibbon does.

They should not, as mental health professionals, point to something he does and call it paranoia. Not without an actual examination. THen they shouldn't comment at all on their patient.

The rest of us, not being mental health professionals, can say that the President is as crazy as a librarian chasing a howler monkey through the Vatican on Easter without fear of violating any ethics.
Except for that GOP insisting that we respect the pres, despite 8 years of 'Not My President' setting the example.

I don't agree. Granted, a formal diagnosis without an examination is unethical according to the APA.

But I don't see why a psychologist couldn't say Trump's behavior is consistent with and a troubling indication of eg paranoia.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't agree. Granted, a formal diagnosis without an examination is unethical according to the APA.

But I don't see why a psychologist couldn't say Trump's behavior is consistent with and a troubling indication of eg paranoia.

If I were a mental health professional, especially a spokesperson for an organization for the protection and advancement of the profession, i'd fear that a psychologist could spend 10 minutes piling up disclaimers, such as "I have not examined nor treated Mr. Trump, nor have I had five minutes alone with him, but I would say that his behavior in the October 4th press conference, especially his inability to remember the title of the office to which he was elected, could be consistent with indications of one of three or four severe mental health concerns, to include ....."

But what's going to end up on the evening news and youtube and tomorrow's headline is 'Dr. Headshrinker insists Trump is Nutsy Fagin.'
And Nutsy's lawyers will gain the moral high ground by insisting the mental healther should not have diagnosed nutsy faginism from scattered news program appearances, staving off actual discussion of his actual condition for another round.

As usual...

 

[ZiprHead]

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

Doctors can discuss what, for example, paranoia is.

They can, as voters, express concerns about something the shitgibbon does.

They should not, as mental health professionals, point to something he does and call it paranoia. Not without an actual examination. THen they shouldn't comment at all on their patient.

The rest of us, not being mental health professionals, can say that the President is as crazy as a librarian chasing a howler monkey through the Vatican on Easter without fear of violating any ethics.
Except for that GOP insisting that we respect the pres, despite 8 years of 'Not My President' setting the example.

I don't agree. Granted, a formal diagnosis without an examination is unethical according to the APA.

But I don't see why a psychologist couldn't say Trump's behavior is consistent with and a troubling indication of eg paranoia.

We Are Mandated Reporters
Mental-health professionals are mandated reporters with a duty to warn our patients and the community around us if we feel there is a potential danger. In this case, we collectively feel there is a duty to warn the public of the threat Donald Trump poses both to our nation and the planet.

It is our duty to notice when an individual is a danger to themselves and/or others.

What about the Goldwater Rule?

“The Goldwater Rule is not absolute. We have a ‘Duty to Warn,’ about a leader who is dangerous to the health and security of our patients.” Mental-health professionals are “sufficiently alarmed that they feel the need to speak up about the mental-health status of the president.”

https://www.adutytowarn.org/

 

[TV and credit cards]

If the left leaning media (CNN, MSNBC) dwells too much on Trump's mental fitness going forward, I think it will drag Biden and age into the conversation. This could weaken Democrats in the 2020 election as it casts a shadow over those dems with the greatest name recognition. If voters with only a passing interest in politics start to question the dems top three and ultimately the dem nominee, this could sap some of the energy from the 2020 election. Meanwhile, the Trump nutbags will remain unfazed.
For better or worse, this is one issue that should be left for the conservatives to address, or not. At this point, let Trump be Trump. He is his own worst enemy in these regards. No sane individual need be told how ridiculous doctoring a weather map with a Sharpie is. Dipshit didn't even have enough sense to use a white Sharpie.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...alignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really

John Gartner, Ph.D., is a psychologist who taught at Johns Hopkins University Medical School for 28 years. He says yes, the president has malignant narcissism, as follows in his chapter in the book Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018):

“Trump suffers from malignant narcissism, a diagnosis [that is] far more toxic and dangerous than mere narcissistic personality disorder because it combines narcissism with three other severely pathological components: paranoia, sociopathy, and sadism. When combined, this perfect storm of psychopathology defines the ‘quintessence of evil,’ according to Fromm, the closest thing psychiatry has to describing a true human monster.”7

On the other hand, in February 2017, soon after Trump began his presidency, the psychiatrist who wrote the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders in the DSM-5 manual for mental health professionals, Allen Frances, said “No.” He points out that there are two threshold criteria (significant distress and/or impairment) for the diagnosis of all personality disorders, and that the president does not meet either one, so he does not even have narcissistic personality disorder itself, let alone the disorder of malignant narcissism.

Seems to me that some are using DSM-5 as a gag rule. If we have a mentally compromised president, don't we need to discuss it?

Addressing the bolded, being rich can cover for a lot of distress and impairment.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Addressing the bolded, being rich can cover for a lot of distress and impairment.

Indeed. And he may have made his fortune largely before he deteriorated.

Also I wonder - don't obsessions like Sharpiegate or the inauguration crowd size indicate distress?

 

[Gun Nut]

One of those things results in a formal diagnosis, and the other does not.

that is not a material difference.. that is a rather immaterial one (a technicality, as it were).
It's like when a ballplayer hits it out of the park, but the scoreboard for some reason never updates.... the crowd does not begin to question the homerun they just witnessed.

Diagnoses are pretty important if you're hoping to take legal action of any sort. Such as invoking certain constitutional provisions.

Choosing who to vote for is not a legal action.
Choosing to impeach a president is not a legal action (but indictment is)