Posted on 01/08/2018 9:16:45 AM PST by tired&retired
Libel of a public figure is pretty tough to litigate. Given the high profile, though, there may well be lawyers at Trump, Inc. even now pondering your question.
By the way, if she was the Chief Resident at Mass Gen, she’s flat out one of the best doctors in the country.
That's a damning indictment of the psychiatric profession.
She is an MD, but NOT a licensed MD and therefore can not practice medicine in CT. However, it appears that she is.
According to the Yale website for her, she is accepting patients.
In addition, her publications and statements concerning Trump are considered medical diagnosis since she is a psychiatrist and making statements concerning his mental status. That is considered practicing medicine.
The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics that states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined[further explanation needed] 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 U.S. 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 $592,000 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.
“Libel of a public figure is pretty tough to litigate.”
Very true. But for psychiatrists giving opinion on an individual’s mental state, the rules are different. Se the Goldwater Rule post just above.
The regulations may vary from state to state.
AFAIK, “MD” is a degree earned by completing the courses and graduating from a 4 year medical school. Once earned, that “MD” is a designation that the individual carries for life. Similar to the D.O. degree from a college of osteopathy, “doctors” who now are recognized as physicians on equal footing with MDs in most if not all of the 50 states.
State licensing of “Doctors” is different. That indeed is required to actively practice as a “medical doctor” (diagnose/treat patients and bill for services) in each given state. The individual states determine exactly what credentials are needed for licensing. CA or OK or FL may be different than CT, for instance. I will leave out the bit about nurses (APRNs/DNPs) now being called “Doctors” too.
But a graduate of a medical school retains his/her right to identify himself as an MD (or DO) for life, and may use it for identification in public, after he has retired and is no longer licensed or no longer is actively practicing medicine.
As far as the AMA goes, it has little to do with the issue of licensing. It publishes magazines and makes public pronouncements. But only about 15% of the practicing physicians in the US belong to it any more. That has been true for decades.
In terms of this particular Yale psychiatrist, it is very odd that she no longer has a CT medical license. Unless she has given up treating patients at Yale, she would need one. It is possible that she has a license and practices in another state where the annual fee for the license is significantly lower than in CT (e.g., NY). If so, it is possible that she just has a legacy faculty title at Yale and visits there to lecture occasionally.
Yes ... one topic of discussion for Trump's pet sharks.
She IS an M.D.
?mentally defective?
Thank you for the excellent points of clarification. I agree with all that you said.
It appears that (per the Yale website) she was accepting patients while her license was expired.
My memory (which is getting worse the older I get) is that in order to hold the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REGISTRATION FOR PRACTITIONER which lapsed 02/28/2017, she must also hold a current medical license, which lapsed 05/31/2015.
I checked the Massachusetts Physician’s Licensing as she was also at Harvard, and no license showed up under her name.
This woman has made it her mission to criticize Trump’s mental status and it is time she gets a taste of her own medicine.
It seems that she could well be exposed to a malpractice accusation.
Here are a few of her words..
Bandy Lee
“This is a disagreement over ethical rules, not medical assessment. It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous. I am sure there are some who feel unsure, or feel that they don’t have enough information or the expertise, and that is fine, since not everyone has devoted her 20-year career to studying, predicting, and preventing violence like I have. But there has not been a single serious mental health expert who disagrees on the medical side.”
These idjits should ensure their doghouse is sparkly clean before pooping in someone else’s yard.
A few more of Bandy’s words:
Bandy Lee
We are assessing dangerousness, not making a diagnosis. The two are quite separate: Assessing dangerousness is making a judgment about the situation, not the person. The same person may not be dangerous in a different situation, for example. And it is his threat to public health, not his personal affairs, that is our concern.
A diagnosis, on the other hand, is a personal affair that does not change with situation, and you require all relevant information — including, I believe, a personal interview. Most people who are dangerous do not have a diagnosable mental illness, and most people with mental illness are more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
Also, once you declare danger, you are calling first for containment and removal of weapons from the person and, second, for a full evaluation — which may then yield diagnoses. Until that happens, physicians and mental health professionals are expected to err on the side of safety and can be held legally liable if they fail to act. So we’re merely calling for an urgent evaluation so that we may have definitive answers.
In doing that, we are fulfilling a routine, public expectation of duty that comes with our profession — the only part that is unusual is that this is happening in the presidency. Perhaps this is reason to build in a fitness for duty, or capacity, exam for presidential candidates, just like for military officers, so that this does not happen again.
We encounter this often in mental health. Those who most require an evaluation are the least likely to submit to one. That is the reason why in all 50 states we have not only the legal authority, but often the legal obligation, to contain someone even against their will when it’s an emergency.
So in an emergency, neither consent nor confidentiality requirements hold. Safety comes first. What we do in the case of danger is we contain the person, we remove them from access to weapons, and we do an urgent evaluation.
This is what we have been calling for with the president based on basic medical standards of care.
Our role is not to intervene in his care, or to interfere in any way in the usual political process. We are just giving medical input as witnessing professionals who can see signs that point to danger as a public health threat that the public or lawmakers may not be aware of or see to its full extent.
The American Psychiatric Association in its code of ethics bans its members from commenting on the mental health of public figures — what’s known as the Goldwater Rule. In March, the APA expanded the rule from not only diagnosing public figures but also to sharing “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.”
She admitted on Twitter that she was incapable of maintaining her small Twitter account.
I think your impression is correct. To hold the CT Dept of Consumer Affairs certificate ($40/2yrs) the Doc also must be licensed by the CT Dept of Public Health ($575/yr). Bandy apparently has neither at this point. But she does apparently see patients in NYC (Manhattan and Queens), a short train ride from Yale. One website identifies her NY State license number (as I remember it, $700/2 yrs)....I suspect that she is counting pennies as it does not look like she has a carriage trade practice. Thus she would be avoiding the CT license/practice costs and nominally listed as available to see patients at Yale but probably never establishing a Dr-Pt relationship legally and billing for any services—thus avoiding legal problems
https://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Bandy_Lee.html
https://www.healthcare6.com/physician/rego-park-ny/bandy-lee-2380500.html
Also, interestingly the Yale SOM website does NOT list her as one of their psychiatrists who is taking new patients — so her connections there may be more on the academic than clinical side...
https://www.yalemedicine.org/doctors/?department=Psychiatry&acceptingNewPatients=true&female=true
But I do agree completely with your take on her professional behavior/ethics. IMO, the Goldwater rule applies, and she has tried to justify otherwise with a truly strained rationale. Unfortunately, the NYS DOH under Cuomo will IMO not likely take action against her license.....
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.