She had pneumonia during the election. She continued speaking though, but eventually after that fainting incident she was ordered to take it easy for a while.
"A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’
"More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”
"A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’
"More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”
"More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition...
Having not personally met and evaluated the man, a bunch of individuals signed a petition. Try to think about that, Tass, apart from your own hateful bias.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
No competent doctor with any integrity would attempt to diagnose someone without performing a personal examination. The one doctor who has personally examined Trump says that he is mentally and physically fit.
No competent doctor with any integrity would attempt to diagnose someone without performing a personal examination. The one doctor who has personally examined Trump says that he is mentally and physically fit.
But... but... they SIGNED A PETITION!!!!! That's worth... um....... (reminds me of all the videos of people getting others to sign a petition for really dumb stuff by explaining "well, all this means is...")
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
"A number of experts have become so concerned about Trump they are willing to face reprisals from their organisations for breaking such rules, including Psychotherapist John D Gartner. The John’s Hopkins Professor has said Trump displays signs of 'malignant narcissism', also reportedly stating: ‘Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being President.’
"More than 60,000 mental health professionals have signed the petition, which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”
Are you familiar with what is colloquially called "The Goldwater Rule"[1]? It is contained in part 3 of Section 7 of the American Psychiatric Association's "The Principles of Medical Ethics" which has been in effect for 44 years (and can be downloaded in pdf form HERE). I'll bold the pertinent portion for you
3. 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.
As Maria A. Oquendo, President of American Psychiatric Association, emphasized last year
She reemphasized this in the conclusion where she wrote "Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical."
Likewise the American Psychological Association's code of ethics also cautions its members against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. The president of that association, Susan H. McDaniel, reminded the members of this when she wrote about the guidelines during the 2016 election cycle in a letter in The New York Times, reproduced below in full.
McDaniel also sent a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding a similar article
So much for scurrilous petitions signed by irresponsible, unethical butthurt partisans.
ETA: Having studied questionable "petitions" like this in the past my suspicions are immediately raised when I see terms like "mental health professionals" in that they might include receptionists, billing secretaries, and sales representatives working for companies that sell to psychologists/psychiatrists in order to greatly pad the numbers.
1. It came about after the now defunct Fact magazine published the results of a 1964 survey of 2417 psychiatrists about whether U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was fit to be president and which concluded no, that he was "psychologically unfit" to be president. Even though this "diagnosis" was obtained "by merely observing him on TV or reading what he writes," Goldwater was labeled a "dangerous lunatic," "paranoid," "emotionally too unstable" and that he had a "Godlike self-image." Sound familiar?
Goldwater sued the editor for libel and won (extremely difficult for a public person to win such cases in the U.S.) a $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) judgment for damages.
Are you familiar with what is colloquially called "The Goldwater Rule"[1]? It is contained in part 3 of Section 7 of the American Psychiatric Association's "The Principles of Medical Ethics" which has been in effect for 44 years (and can be downloaded in pdf form HERE). I'll bold the pertinent portion for you
3. 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.
As Maria A. Oquendo, President of American Psychiatric Association, emphasized last year
She reemphasized this in the conclusion where she wrote "Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical."
Likewise the American Psychological Association's code of ethics also cautions its members against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined. The president of that association, Susan H. McDaniel, reminded the members of this when she wrote about the guidelines during the 2016 election cycle in a letter in The New York Times, reproduced below in full.
McDaniel also sent a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding a similar article
So much for scurrilous petitions signed by irresponsible, unethical butthurt partisans.
ETA: Having studied questionable "petitions" like this in the past my suspicions are immediately raised when I see terms like "mental health professionals" in that they might include receptionists, billing secretaries, and sales representatives working for companies that sell to psychologists/psychiatrists in order to greatly pad the numbers.
1. It came about after the now defunct Fact magazine published the results of a 1964 survey of 2417 psychiatrists about whether U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was fit to be president and which concluded no, that he was "psychologically unfit" to be president. Even though this "diagnosis" was obtained "by merely observing him on TV or reading what he writes," Goldwater was labeled a "dangerous lunatic," "paranoid," "emotionally too unstable" and that he had a "Godlike self-image." Sound familiar?
Goldwater sued the editor for libel and won (extremely difficult for a public person to win such cases in the U.S.) a $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) judgment for damages.
The APsaA which is an affiliate of the APA, disagrees with the Goldwater rule. So there!
Originally Posted by Mountain Man
Jedidiah amen'd this post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
