Every day brings new surprises and new tweets from the president. Most recently, he tweeted that President Obama was tapping his phone lines during the campaign without offering any evidence. Then he tweeted that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a very poor host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” No end to the surprising ideas that rattle his mind in the wee hours. He has insisted that no one in his campaign had any communications with Russian officials, but several have reluctantly admitted this was not true. He fired his National Security Advisor Mike Flynn for lying about his contact with the Russian ambassador, but several other Trump associates have also met with the Russian ambassador, including his son-in-law. It is all very puzzling.
Psychiatrists disagree about how to judge Trump’s mental health. Since 1964, when a number of psychiatrists made negative pronouncements about Republican candidate Senator Barry Goldwater, most follow the “Goldwater rule.” That rule says you cannot diagnose someone you have not personally examined.
However, a substantial number of psychiatrists today believe that the Goldwater rule has been superseded by a “duty to warn.”
Here are examples of both views.
Psychiatrists have appeared on the Lawrence O’Donnell program in MSNBC to defend the “duty to warn.” They believe Trump is unfit to serve as president. They say they have collected 26,000 signatures on their petition.
By contrast, I offer this comment sent to me by a psychiatrist who asked to remain anonymous:
In psychiatry, diagnosis opens the possible pathway to treatment informing those us entrusted with the care of another an appropriate and effective approach. There are many different approaches to persons with the same or similar “diagnostic labels.” Psychiatrists have to deal with the complexity of the person, as do other medical fields, but it needs to be more taken into account due to denial, resistance and non-compliance given the relative subjectivity of the field, though this comes with the territory and is not necessarily a hindrance. In most medical fields diagnosis is followed by treatment. Donald Trump, as an obvious understatement, is not a candidate for treatment. Thus the nomenclature of malignant narcissism with insecure, infantile, sociopathic, possibly psychopathic, and grandiose features, along with total lack of personal insight will not be helpful in removing him from office. It would only lead to psychological or psychiatric nomenclature which would be a dead-end in salvaging our democracy. Only a description of his expressions, behavior and actions would possibly be effective. That he has shown massive displays of congenital lying, misogyny, racism, indiscriminately abusive behavior, lack of a conscience, insulting, brazen inaccurate claims, inability to read, nullifying the media that is his source of news, shocking ignorance of his responsibilities, demeaning behavior, ruthlessness, inappropriateness at all levels,; not permitting a follow-up question let alone a completed one but primordially sniffing out whether the questioner idolizes him or is the enemy; incoherent rambling, chaos at the highest level, no incidence of self accountability plus possible financial, national and international improprieties. Not having any respect for other people, the law, our history and the constitution would be a more effective focus for removing this misguided individual before we all enter the history books in collective tragedy.
What do you think?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Sounds extremely accurate to me.
Every day brings something horrific. That is why the stress level of the country has risen. I often get up and wonder what today’s news will bring.
Trump has proven that he is totally unfit for the job. He is too mentally unstable and is a danger to the whole world.
LikeLike
It doesn’t take a degree to recognize a consummate con man and a demagogue, it takes no more than common sense and a few times being burned by the breed. Unfortunately, common sense seems to be in short supply these days.
LikeLike
Thanks for sending this. I completely agree.
LikeLike
“Duty to warn”? Baloney. That applies in specific cases in which a client confides a desire/intent to harm a specific person or group of people. In other words, because of his/her personal relationship, the mental health professional has access to privileged information not available to others, including the person(s) threatened.
Absolutely none of that applies here. Having never met Trump personally, these mental health professionals have no access to any information that the general public does not have. They are in no better position to judge Trump’s “fitness for duty” than the people who elected him.
The Goldwater Rule still applies.
LikeLike
Thank you Dienne,
I think these medical specialists need examining as well. Trump has done nothing wrong. Many of these characteristics can be applied to our former president who is indirectly responsible for Benghazi and a few in congress as well. Trump is not a traditional politician but as a businessman he is probably up there with the best. I go with the Goldwater rule.
LikeLike
“. . . but as a businessman he is probably up there with the best.”
Now you and I agree with Dienne’s analysis.
But to state that “he is probably up there with the best”, well, defies logic. How many bankruptcies?? How much screwing the little guy in his business dealings has he done in his life? He knows how to survive being a shitty businessman through shrewd usage of lawyers and money, that is all.
LikeLike
Thanks, Duane. I had dinner a few days ago with a friend in New York who told me that his firm had worked to complete the Trump Tower. They were paid periodically, but the last payment was never delivered. When he asked why, Trump said “sue me.” The firm couldn’t afford to fight Trump, so they gave up their last payment (which was sizable), and laid off many workers. That’s the way he operates. The art of the deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you mean “the art of the RAW deal”-LOL!
LikeLike
I agree with Dienne. No matter what I think is the cause of his behavior, as a Resource Specialist I would only deal with his behavior unless he wanted a diagnosis! He cannot be “labeled” unless he wants to be. Therefore, No Excuses.
LikeLike
I began my career as a teacher working with adolescents on a locked unit in one of New England’s “Ivy League” psychiatric hospitals. In the six years I worked there, I attended as many in-service trainings as possible, and in so doing learned something about the field–particularly the epistemological issues with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (now in its fifth edition and known as the DSM-V). For that reason, I mostly agree with the Goldwater Rule: psychiatric diagnoses are sufficiently fraught with epistemological and interpretive problems that it’s fair to say a person really must be examined in person in order to render a diagnosis.
For that reason, I think the anonymous psychiatrist quoted in this post is absolutely correct in focusing on Trump’s symptoms, and their effect on our republic, rather than endeavoring to render a diagnosis. Who really cares, after all, what President Trump’s diagnosis (or, in his case, diagnoses) is? That’s between him and his therapists (and I hope if he doesn’t use a therapist, he will begin soon!). It’s the effect of his symptoms on our polity that is germane. And it is the rules of our polity–the United States Constitution–that are the better tool for dealing with this president–to say nothing of his administration.
In other words, I completely agree with him or her.
LikeLike
I agree and fear for our country and citizens. With all that is happening, the GOP must take action. Impeachment cannot come soon enough.
LikeLike
This quote appeared in a Washington Post column written by BY JAMES HOHMANN
with Breanne Deppisch
“We have as president a man who is erratic, vindictive, volatile, obsessive, a chronic liar, and prone to believe in conspiracy theories,” said conservative commentator Peter Wehner, who was the top policy strategist in George W. Bush’s White House. “And you can count on the fact that there will be more to come, since when people like Donald Trump gain power they become less, not more, restrained.”
LikeLike
Really a person like Trump, in the position of power that he is in, tests the character of everyone, particularly those closest to him. I suppose one measure of an individuals character is the degree to which a person is capable of being honest with his or herself.
Having established that Trump is a pathological liar with character flaws, serious enough to disqualify him from being President, as many, many people agree, I look at all the people around him, and wonder how they sleep at night.
Trump ain’t gonna ruin America all by himself
LikeLike
You are correct. Trump is enabled by his family and the people whom he ‘likes” and regards as loyal to him. He is enabled by every member of Congress who supports his slash and burn policies and applaud his “style” as if substance did not matter.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s OK for a mental health professional to point out that elements of Trump’s behavior & public statements are consistent with generally accepted definitions of certain psychiatric conditions, with the qualification that a person’s public face is an incomplete picture. However, this could open up a can of worms we may may not like, as then it’s OK to do it with any public figure, & it seems psychiatrists could be found to make such statements about quite a few people in public life. The anonymous psychiatrist you quoted makes a good point. The real issue is Trump’s (or anyone’s) suitability for a position he holds, based on his own actions & statements. I’d think diagnostic labels become important only if cause can be established to have a person declared legally mentally incompetent for some reason.
LikeLike
Additionally: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/
Sorry, but the Goldwater Test isn’t flying here for me. Over 29,000 mental health professionals in a petition believe that the IPOTUS is mentally ill and must be removed.
If it we’re 29, 290, or even 2,900, I’d say that there is a lack of credence. Twenty-nine thousand professionals is pretty overwhelming. We all know that it’s unofficial, but reminds us all that there is a 25th amendment that could come into play.
LikeLike
Something else to weigh in the consideration of this question: as a society, we mostly do not hold people who are clinically mentally ill responsible for their actions. That might not be a road we want to go down with this president…which is the road we will embark upon if our mental health professionals diagnose him.
LikeLike
Not responsible due to mental illness just means a person may not be subjected to criminal charges, BUT such a person can be then legally removed from a professional position, particularly one that involves the public trust. A legal determination of mental illness also frequently involves an order to submit to treatment &, if the subject is judged to be a danger to himself &/or others, confinement in a treatment facility. I’d be fine with foregoing criminal charges under those stipulations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I waited to comment until I spoke to my father, a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, for his response. Interestingly, there’s an intersection with what I was taught in Observation and Recording at Bank St. College (40 years ago—do they even teach this anymore?), psychoanalysis and anthropology. In all three fields, the observer describes the behavior without labeling or diagnosing it. People will only end up, in the case of DT, arguing about the labels and diagnosis. Give folks the information to evaluate the behavior for themselves. And yes, some will think that his behavior is fine and just what they voted for. People who, on the other hand, receive information from creditable sources, are better armed to fight with the manifest actions of his chaotic thinking and descriptions of his behavior that appears disruptive and disrespectful. My father (83) thought the psychiatrist who wrote the email to Diane was spot on. As a teacher-librarian for 25 years, I found effective and successful communication to parents during Parent/Teacher conferences, to describe behavior that seems troublesome without judgement or label, but curiosity and often a little humor. It’s what Dorothy Cohen, author of The Learning Child, taught so many years ago at Bank Street. Hard to do with a man who hardly seems fit to be president, but those who think he is, will have to judge by the sheer accumulation of deeds whether he is or not.
LikeLike
I am not in the psychiatric profession but my gut tells me that there are plenty of Trump actions pre and post president that will come out that will enable legal channels to initiate impeachment without having to resort to the unchartered psychiatric route. As I understand it, Trump does not have to step down even if impeachment succeeds. I am guessing, however, that there will be some highly damning evidence that will make him decide to step down or face exposure of those damning actions along with the consequences.
LikeLike
Diane,
An observation – As to an article from WashingtonExaminer: on the EPA the reason people have a problem:
First, the EPA has the discretion to decide how much weight should be given to different studies. Second, the EPA does not currently release all the studies it uses as the basis for regulation. Finally, members of the EPA choose members of the Scientific Advisory Board, which advises the EPA on scientific studies and regulations.
The purpose of the EPA is to safeguard the environment and individuals’ health. However, to do so there must be a standardized process and unfettered public access to evidence used in creating regulation. The selection of advisory boards must be structured so that there will be a diversity of viewpoints in these groups. The committee rightly recommended that the EPA reveal the how, the why, and the who of their policies.
There is clear potential for bias in the EPA’s current procedure for evaluating scientific studies. There is, in fact, no standardized procedure at all. In crafting regulation, the EPA chooses the studies it will consider and how to evaluate those studies. Though it may consider opposing scientific evidence, there is no explicit standard for deciding which studies are more or less valuable. The EPA has absolute discretion in determining which studies are valid and which are not. The EPA also decides whether one study can serve as the basis for new regulation while a study that reached a contrary conclusion may be dismissed. The committee’s suggestion of an overhaul of the evaluative procedure would encourage the use of good science while also reducing the effect of bias on evaluation.
Bias within the EPA can also be obscured through the use of scientific studies that the EPA chooses not to publish. For the public to make an informed decision as to whether regulations are justified, there must be access to the studies on which the EPA relies. Currently, the EPA is not required to publish the studies that it uses to craft regulation. Evaluating whether the EPA is staying true to its mission can only be determined if all the facts are available.
Even more concerning, the very system through which the EPA confirms that evidence is sound and regulation is effective perpetuates bias. The EPA chooses the members of the Scientific Advisory Board. As it stands, the advisory process is stacked to perpetuate the EPA’s current position, with the SBA consistently rubber-stamping regulations. The committee suggested electing members of the board or placing time limits on how long a member may serve. One thing is clear: The EPA must develop a selection process that increases viewpoint diversity on the board.
An echo chamber cannot create a well-reasoned position, and without thorough and objective review of all available evidence, the EPA cannot best meet its protective goals. Recently confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has pledged to respect the rule of law and limitations on EPA authority during his tenure.
The solutions offered in the Science and Technology Committee’s meeting are consistency, transparency, and objective evaluation. Enacting these solutions would allow Pruitt to make a reasoned determination of whether regulations are lawful. If we don’t know how evidence is chosen, and we don’t know the scientific basis of regulation, and we don’t know who is deciding whether regulation is appropriate, the public can have little confidence in the future that the EPA will respect the rule of law in seeking to protect the environment, rather than merely advance partisan agenda.
Robert Henneke is the general counsel and director of the Center for the American Future at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Merritt Lander is a policy analyst with the Center for the American Future at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
LikeLike
“There is clear potential for bias in the EPA’s current procedure for evaluating scientific studies. ”
Whatever…. I walk into my university’s appropriate departments, and they all tell me, there is global warming. I believe them, because they are working for the public, and they have no other motivation but researching the truth.
I recommend the same to all: walk into your neighborhood’s public university and ask the researchers there about environmental, geographical, biological, medical issues, and you get answers you can trust.
Do this soon, though, because public universities are about to be privatized, and then they will be the source of only the billionaires’ version of truths about the environment and economy.
LikeLike
Trump deserves impeachment,conviction, and jail
for what he’s already done. I agree with Artseagal.
And Abraham Lincoln.
You can’t fool all of the poeple all of the time.
A day of reckoning is coming, the sooner the better.
LikeLike
“Thus the nomenclature of malignant narcissism with … congenital lying, misogyny, racism, indiscriminately abusive behavior, lack of a conscience, insulting, brazen inaccurate claims, …
What do you think?”
You had me at “malignant narcissism”.
LikeLike
Here is Robert Reich’s take on Trump, “He’s unhinged and dangerous.” So, what will the Orange Buffoon do today to get national attention?
……………………
The Old Trump Is Back. In Fact, He Never Left
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Website
06 March 17
t seems an eternity ago but it was only last Tuesday night when Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress and stuck to the teleprompter without going off the deep end – eliciting rapturous praise from the media.
“Donald Trump at his most presidential,“gushed NBC; “a recitation of hopes and dreams for the nation,” oozed NPR; “the most presidential speech Mr. Trump has ever given — delivered at precisely the moment he needed to project sobriety, seriousness of purpose and self-discipline,” raved the New York Times; “he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him. He became president of the United States,” rhapsodized CNN’s Van Jones.
The bar was so low that all Trump needed to do was not sound nuts and he was “presidential.”
But that all ended Saturday morning when the old Trump – the “birther,” the hatemonger, the thin-skinned paranoid, the liar, the reckless ranter, the vindictive narcissist, the whack-o conman – reemerged in a series of unprecedented and unverified accusations about his predecessor.
In truth, the old Trump was there all along, and he will always be there. He’s unhinged and dangerous. The sooner congressional Republicans accept this, and take action to remove him – whether through impeachment or the 25th Amendment – the better for all of us.
LikeLike