Should psychiatrists tell voters what they think about Trump?
by Xavier Symons | 18 Jun 2016 | 6 comments
Despite Hilary Clinton’s recent claims that Donald Trump is temperamentally unsuited to be president and her suggestion that he may be unhinged – clinicians have steered clear of volunteering their professional opinion in the public forum. There is a reason for this.
According to an American Psychiatric Association regulation known informally as The Goldwater Rule, psychiatrists are not allowed to volunteer their opinion on the mental health of a public figure without having had a private consultation with the individual, and, what’s more, received their authorization to make a public statement. There is provision, however, for psychiatrists to comment on more general issues of mental health (and this often happens). A very similar rule applies to psychologists.
The advantage of this is, according to Susan H. McDaniel, president of the American Psychological Association, that psychiatrists and psychologists don’t give the impression of having “a professional relationship … with people in the public eye”.
One disadvantage is that voters can only access amateur psycho-babble. Here’s a recent Freudian account of Trump from New York Review of Books contributor Elizabeth Drew:
“Trump just doesn’t appear to have become a fully-formed adult. He is unable to deal in nuance or seem to understand how much of life, and certainly governing, involves compromise. He wants his way and when he doesn’t get it the result is a temper tantrum of some sort. The Freudians would say that Trump is all id, the id that’s never been brought to heel.”A notable exception to the rule is Northwestern University psychology professor Dan P. Adams. Adams has in recent years written a number of articles (and even a book) on the temperaments of politicians. This month he published a lengthy and detailed psychological portrait of Trump in The Atlantic, arguing that with his “well documented life history” one can construct “develop a dispassionate and analytical perspective… drawing upon some of the most important ideas and research findings in psychological science today.”
Adams had this to say about Trump:
“In sum, Donald Trump’s basic personality traits suggest a presidency that could be highly combustible. One possible yield is an energetic, activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth. He could be a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker who desperately desires to create the strongest, tallest, shiniest, and most awesome result—and who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind. Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive.”But do you need a psychology degree to write that?
I have no love for Donald Trump, but it does seem unfair that only he is being accused of being crazy in this year’s election for president. It is a truth universally acknowledged that any man (or woman) who hankers after high public office must be in need of a psychiatrist. In 2013 psychologists published an article asserting that most recent presidents have suffered from “grandiose narcissism, which comprises immodesty, boastfulness and interpersonal dominance”. Remember that Hillary Clinton has been accused of all these failings, not just Trump. Perhaps they are crafty, not crazy.
That’s why the Goldwater Rule is a good thing. As Xavier Symons mentions below, this is an informal rule of medical ethics for psychologists and psychiatrists which bans them from commenting on the mental state and stability of public figures. It’s very rash to predict that psychological flaws disqualify a person from holding public office. Winston Churchill was depressive and an alcoholic and became the most admired statesman of the 20th century. Abraham Lincoln probably suffered from depression but is the most revered of all American presidents. Mr Trump may be unsuited to the job of president, but I’d prefer to make up my own mind on the subject without airy speculation from psychiatrists who have never spoken to the man himself.
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
| This week in BioEdge | |
by Xavier Symons | Jun 18, 2016
Professional associations ban comments on public figuresby Xavier Symons | Jun 18, 2016
Can a child ask for withdrawal of treatment?by Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
The short answer is: don't hold your breathby Xavier Symons | Jun 18, 2016
The American Medical Association has labelled gun violence a “public health crisis” and called on congress to fund research into gun related crime.by Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
Ethicists have serious doubts about the procedure, even in Chinaby Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
But donation goes against strong cultural prejudicesby Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
"They become an unacceptable economic burden in time of crisis"by Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
A pioneer in modern medical ethics broke some of the rulesby Michael Cook | Jun 18, 2016
Is a knighthood part of a publicity campaign for three-parent embryos?BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605BioEdge: Should psychiatrists tell voters what they think about Trump?
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario