Skip to comments.The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President
Posted on 09/20/2017 11:59:51 AM PDT by tired&retired
New Book Release Date October 3, 2017
The consensus view of two dozen psychiatrists and psychologists that Trump is dangerously mentally ill and that he presents a clear and present danger to the nation and our own mental health.
Since the start of Donald Trumps presidential run, one question has quietly but urgently permeated the observations of concerned citizens: What is wrong with him? Constrained by the American Psychiatric Associations Goldwater rule, which inhibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined, many of those qualified to answer this question have shied away from discussing the issue at all. The public has thus been left to wonder whether he is mad, bad, or both.
In THE DANGEROUS CASE OF DONALD TRUMP, twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts argue that, in Mr. Trumps case, their moral and civic duty to warn America supersedes professional neutrality. They then explore Trumps symptoms and potentially relevant diagnoses to find a complex, if also dangerously mad, man.
Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword, for instance, explain Trumps impulsivity in terms of unbridled and extreme present hedonism. Craig Malkin writes on pathological narcissism and politics as a lethal mix. Gail Sheehy, on a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia. Lance Dodes, on sociopathy. Robert Jay Lifton, on the malignant normality that can set in everyday life if psychiatrists do not speak up.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
I suggest that Trump sue them ASAP.
Imagine if we had a book like this on Hillary, Bill, and Obama!!!
As a STEM guy, I f*rt in the general direction of these idiots.
There is a reason they went into that direction instead of REAL medicine.
To be objective, I would have to see what they found about Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they did the same analysis.
Eight years of B-HO, and suddenly everyone is an expert on narcissism. Effff off!
It’s a fact, fully 90% of all shrinks are nuts.
The blind leading the blind.
You are absolutely right. A lot of shrinks have issues of their own. And it why they specialize in it.
The “psych” field is intended to be used by the left as one of their most potent weapons. They are working feverishly to have conservatives deemed “mentally unstable” and therefore, “unfit” to own or possess a firearm. They’ve made this argument numerous times.
Most of them are pillow biters, too.
Wiki for reference
The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater”. The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president. The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $579,000 today) in damages.
Section 7, which appeared in the first edition of the APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973 and is still in effect as of 2017, says:
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.
The APA Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, a different organization than the American Psychiatric Association, also supports a similar rule. In 2016, in response to the New York Times article “Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?”, American Psychological Association President Susan H. McDaniel published a letter in The New York Times in which she stated:
Similar to the psychiatrists’ Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to “take precautions” that any statements they make to the media “are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice” and “do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established” with people in the public eye, including political candidates.
When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination “adequate to support statements or conclusions.” In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.
When the write something about the sociopath Hillary and the narcissist Obama I might be interested.
Hope they all paid their malpractice premiums.
Trumps election campaign should sue them. And, each of his companies.
They could only find 27 shrinks to sign on ?
Dear 27 shrinks,
well if you really think he’s that Dangerous,
shouldn’t you stop criticizing him and STFU?
I mean, for your own safety...
Sie world ist gone coo coo.
many to choose from.
Every single one of them should have their credentials revoked for malpractice.
A band of Leftard ideologists with no scientific credibility.
Yes to your question. They went into this faux science which left its roots in philosophy and physical medicine because their minds are not capable of the rigor the root disciplines demand.
They never cure anyone with their meds and theories. One exception is cognitive therapy which is rooted in philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.