18 000 psychologists, psychiatrists ... consder Trump mentally unfit to be President!

commonsense

commonsense

Active member
john w said:
I seem to recall, when Reagan was elected,that many/most(?) thought he was a wacko.....Wait....Many/most(?) think MADists are wackos...


I say, relax, have a few brewski's, Jack Daniel's, joints, Necarine Crush's, Fresca's, Tab's,..."Mr. Cookie Bars," take a nap, and head on over to the picture show...
Click to expand...

Yes, yes good advice....but more importantly, where's the market headed for the next 90 days?
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
eider said:
Well, a majority (out of 300 million folks) voted for Mr Trump to be President.

annabenedetti said:
Actually, the majority voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

eider said:
President Trump won, which means that somebody voted for him........lots of folks voted for him.
Click to expand...

He didn't get a majority of the popular vote which is what you originally said. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump won the electoral college.

Just shows what a bunch of quacks psychiatrists and psychologists are. They need to revisit their terminology, just as they have before.....
They change the names of conditions to suit the times, you know. One seriously dreadful disability, called 'hysteria' up until the late 80's was broken up into it's several individual conditions and the name scrapped, almost certainly for 'fashionable' reasons.
They change their minds every few decades, or even sooner!
Click to expand...

How wonderful the ancient term hysteria has been updated. We've come a long way from Hippocrates and the wandering uterus. :plain:

No...... no criteria in psychiatry can be classified as specific or exact in any way. When diagnosis is merely ad-hominem opinion things can get very wishy washy.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are specific diagnostic criteria. There's nothing ad hominem about a clinical diagnosis.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
jeffblue101 said:
this thread should read 18,000 hypocritical psychologists, psychiatrists violate their oaths as Doctors so they can engage in politically motivated attacks against Trump.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201701/shrinks-battle-over-diagnosing-donald-trump
Click to expand...

What oath have they violated? Your own excerpt says they're not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements.

I do think there are ethical issues involved in making a public diagnosis and I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Definitely there are going to be professionals on both sides of the issue.

However - I kinda doubt you'd be so exercised about this if it was President Hillary Clinton they were diagnosing...
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti said:
What oath have they violated? Your own excerpt says they're not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements.

I do think there are ethical issues involved in making a public diagnosis and I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Definitely there are going to be professionals on both sides of the issue.

However - I kinda doubt you'd be so exercised about this if it was President Hillary Clinton they were diagnosing...
Click to expand...




hillary the felon?
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
annabenedetti said:
However - I kinda doubt you'd be so exercised about this if it was President Hillary Clinton they were diagnosing...
Click to expand...
We will never know since the same 18000 hypocritical psychologists would never attack a liberal politician especially a female one, in fact they would condemn any diagnosis as being in violation of the Goldwater Rule.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
annabenedetti said:
You haven't said what oath they've broken.
Click to expand...

1. Slandering or doing harm to an indivuial, Barry Goldwater won his libel suit against psychologists who did the same to him.

2. Violation of privacy and consent, not only did they publicly disclose a slanderous diagnosis they did so without his permission or even meeting him face to face.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
jeffblue101 said:
1. Slanderering or doing harm to an indivuial, Berry Goldwater won his libel suit against psychologists who did the same to him.

2. Violation of privacy and consent, not only did they publicly disclose a slanderous diagnosis they did so withoit his permission or even meeting him face to face.
Click to expand...

Neither of those is breaking an oath.

Slander is a separate thing entirely, and there's no violation of privacy if they aren't Trump's personal physician, disclosing his personal medical records.

Your own link said they weren't bound by the Goldwater rule. Did you not read it? "psychologists are not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements about the mental health of public figures"

I've said previously in this thread that there's a valid argument to be had by both sides about the ethics of making a public diagnosis. I'm not arguing that. I'm asking you to support your claim that they've broken an oath and I don't think you're able to support that particular claim.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
annabenedetti said:
What oath have they violated? Your own excerpt says they're not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements.

I do think there are ethical issues involved in making a public diagnosis and I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Definitely there are going to be professionals on both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...

Full text of Goldwater rule:
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
Click to expand...
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
annabenedetti said:
Neither of those is breaking an oath.

Slander is a separate thing entirely,
Click to expand...

Slander is doing harm which is a clear violation of a doctor's oath

and there's no violation of privacy if they aren't Trump's personal physician, disclosing his personal medical records.

Your own link said they weren't bound by the Goldwater rule. Did you not read it? "psychologists are not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements about the mental health of public figures"

I've said previously in this thread that there's a valid argument to be had by both sides about the ethics of making a public diagnosis. I'm not arguing that. I'm asking you to support your claim that they've broken an oath and I don't think you're able to support that particular claim.
Click to expand...

Psychology is a mushy field any way, so it's no suprise to me that ethical standards are not enforced espcially when its something as basic as actually seeing an indiviual before making a diagnosis.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
jeffblue101 said:
Slander is doing harm which is a clear viloation of a doctor's oath

Psychology is a mushy field any way, so it's no suprise to me that ethical standards are not enforced espcially when its something as basic as actually seeing an indiviual before making a diagnosis.
Click to expand...

You know, it's really okay to say that maybe you overstated the case a little bit.

Ethically, I don't know that what they're doing is a good idea, but I can see the argument from both sides. I don't have a settled opinion on it.

But the fact remains, they didn't break an oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top