Psychiatry group tells members they can defy Goldwater rule and comment on Trumps mental health

[HAB911]

The "Goldwater rule," named for 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions about the mental state of public figures.

A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president.

The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents the first significant crack in the profession’s decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians’ behavior. It will likely make many of its members feel more comfortable speaking openly about President Trump’s mental health.

The impetus for the email was “belief in the value of psychoanalytic knowledge in explaining human behavior,” said psychoanalytic association past president Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, a psychiatrist in Chicago. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly.”

That responsibility is especially great today, she told STAT, “since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before” in a commander in chief.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/25/psychiatry-goldwater-rule-trump/

[L. Coyote]

1. "Trumps behavior is so different from anything weve seen before" in a Prez

But they see it every day in their patients.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. I understand the thinking behind the original rule, however...

I think with the deluge of information we get from public figures today, a trained professional can form reasonable opinions without the need for the personal interaction of the therapeutic process. We have a virtual avalanche of behavior exhibited in video, audio, and text formats providing plenty of behavioral samples over time. There are some things psychiatrists cannot draw conclusions about, but they can absolutely learn something helpful from public figures' behavior. That being said, I'm not a fan of untrained laymen opinions that are declared with the seeming authority of a medical professional.

I'm glad the APA made this decision.

[trotsky]

3. Won't really affect anything anyway.

Those who didn't support Trump already knew something's wrong with him.

Those who support him will circle the wagons and scream "BUT HILLARY!", like they always do.

[barbtries]

4. good.

i play armchair psychiatrist all the time with trump, but actual psychiatrists will be more credible than me.

[Gothmog]

5. Trump is unfit to be POTUS

[politicat]

6. Okay, waiting on my professional organization...

That APA is influential, but they're not THE APA (American Psychological Association.)

We've been using "behavior consistent with the Cluster B disorders" as our workaround.

[LeftInTX]

7. I have no idea how they would armchair Trump

When I see "psychoanalysis", I don't expect a blockbuster diagnosis.

But I really don't know that much...

[politicat]

8. Eh. Depends.

I have some old school Freudian analysts in my department, and I don't expect them to diagnose their way out of a wet paper bag. They often have good insights into the parent-child relationship (and gods know, in this case, that one's an easy mark) but really retro-Freudian does still rely on the many months/years of work model.

However, there are a few new school analysts that don't run screaming from the idea of statistics, evidence, and using whatever works (so CBT skills, behaviorist process, mindfulness, etc) and that model is not entirely useless. New Freudian does work on the model that our individual, base operating systems are booted up and installed in early childhood, so what we experience in those years does tend to have lasting effects, and the relationships we build or fail to build can have profound influences throughout life. (And that's not bonkers.)

But given the depth and breadth of open source information on this guy, and how often he goes stream of consciousness on camera, we can definitely start saying "behavior consistent with" at minimum.

[moondust]

9. Agree.

It wouldn't be appropriate to remotely comment on an average citizen who is not continually in the public eye, but for an attention hound whose entire life revolves around attracting publicity and adoration in order to sell his "brand" there are more than enough words and actions available every day upon which to base an educated assessment.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. K&R