tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post7148377189322496584..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Base MotivesDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-30068447278630389872017-09-11T11:59:23.080-07:002017-09-11T11:59:23.080-07:00So you might ask, why do they have it?
The reason ...So you might ask, why do they have it?<br />The reason they have it they've been very clear about if you just<br />listen to them. They're protecting themselves. They themselves --<br />the president of the APA Maria Oquendo and some of these other people --<br />say, "it makes psychiatry look bad", the way we looked bad in the<br />original Goldwater issue in 1964. It makes the field look bad.<br />It makes us look stupid. You can find the quotes -- they basically<br />say that. So that's their reason -- they don't want to look bad,<br />they don't want to be embarrassed by somebody saying something stupid.<br />But that's not an ethics question. That's a guild question -- that's<br />protecting their reputation. And the other reasons which they gave,<br />which are just made up -- things like "it would be insulting to people<br />who have mental problems", which is ridiculous. Nobody's mixing up<br />somebody who's a sociopath like Donald Trump with somebody who has<br />anxiety or depression or even a known illness like schizophrenia.<br />No one's going to make that mistake. We all know what we're talking<br />about, and everybody knows that in the country. So that never had<br />any meaning. And, needless to say, most of us in the field care a<br />great deal about folks who have emotional problems, so we're not -- we're<br />the last people who would try to mock them. And the APA is doing a<br />great disservice by trying to gag people. . .<br />====<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-85088977307623909942017-09-11T11:58:55.324-07:002017-09-11T11:58:55.324-07:00Dodes' remarks about the Goldwater Rule are in...Dodes' remarks about the Goldwater Rule are interesting:<br /><br />(24:13/48:56)<br />--------------<br />DeVega: The concerns about [Trump's] mental health are obvious.<br />Very easy for laypeople to try to diagnose from afar, and<br />I also understand that you have that sort of informal<br />Goldwater Rule. . .<br /><br />Dodes: Yeah, the Goldwater Rule. . .<br /><br />DeVega: Yeah, and I mean, it's funny how that's thrown around, because<br />it's an informal guide, it's not a rule, right?<br /><br />Dodes: It is really a rule of the American Psychiatric Association,<br />which people sort of associate with mental-health providers, but<br />actually, although it does represent most psychiatrists, that is<br />a subset of all the people in the country who are professionals in<br />mental health. For example, the APA's version of the Goldwater Rule<br />is **not** subscribed to by any of the other major mental agencies,<br />including my own, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and also<br />it's not subscribed to by the American Psychological Association<br />or the National Association of Social Workers, and there are a couple<br />of others. Nobody has the extremely rigid view of the APA -- for<br />good reason, because the APA's view, first of all it's unconstitutional,<br />because it prohibits free speech; but aside from that, it's unethical<br />to have the rule as they have it. There is no such rule -- first of<br />all, it's not an ethical question, it's a mistake to call it an<br />ethical question. Uh, psychiatry is a branch of medicine. And<br />medical ethics are very clear. Medical ethics have only to do with<br />two things: one, proper treatment of the patient; and two, proper<br />research. So the second is not relevant here. But proper treatment<br />of patients is a very good idea. That's where ethics comes in.<br />You don't go into a, you know, into doing an operation without<br />knowing what you're doing, or being drunk. But the concerns that the<br />APA is expressing about things like confidentiality and getting the<br />permission of the person before you talk about them simply don't<br />apply unless the person is your patient. Donald Trump is not<br />anybody's patient. So there is no confidentiality rule. There is<br />simply nothing, it's not an ethical matter. And, in fact, no other<br />branch of medicine has this rule. You know, if your favorite<br />linebacker goes down with a tear to his A[nterior]C[ruciate]L[igament]<br />in the football game, the next thing you'll see is on somebody's newscast<br />that they will have some orthopedist come on and talk about ACL<br />injuries and they'll talk about the prognosis and how long it will<br />take, and what kind of treatment there might be, and so forth and so<br />on, and every other medical specialty feels free, and they should<br />feel free, to speak out about public figures, because it's a public<br />service, it's something that when in psychiatry is called "duty to warn".<br />But in this case it's more than warning -- simply informing the<br />public. That's part of our duty, it's part of our job. And it's<br />useful to the public. So, when you gag the people who actually<br />know the best about these things, then you leave the public, as<br />you started by saying, with uninformed lay opinions, some of which<br />may be accurate, but they're still -- it would be nice to get them<br />confirmed by people who actually know what they're talking about.<br />There is no ethical question. The Goldwater Rule was not an<br />ethical question.<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-37549940232802431962017-09-11T11:57:54.610-07:002017-09-11T11:57:54.610-07:00Re:
https://amormundi.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-pat...Re:<br />https://amormundi.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-pathologization-of-donald-trump.html<br />https://amormundi.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-democratization-of-expertise.html<br /><br />http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2017/09/a-conversation-with-psychiatrist-lance.html<br />--------------<br />Saturday, September 9, 2017<br />A Conversation with Psychiatrist Lance Dodes about Donald Trump and Sociopathy<br /><br />Dr. Lance Dodes is the guest on this week's episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show.<br />He is assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School<br />(retired) and a psychoanalyst (Training and Supervising Analyst Emeritus<br />at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute).<br /><br />Dr. Dodes is a signatory to a nationally discussed letter which was published<br />in The New York Times which warned the public about the dangers posed by<br />Donald Trump's mental health. He also has contributed a chapter on<br />Donald Trump and sociopathy in the forthcoming book<br />_The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental<br />Health Experts Assess a President_. <br /><br />During this episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show, Dr. Dodes and Chauncey<br />discuss how clinicians have a "duty to warn" the American people (and the world)<br />about Donald Trump's mental health problems. Dr. Dodes also clarifies<br />the common misunderstandings surrounding the so-called "Goldwater Rule".<br />And Dr. Dodes shares his thoughts about how he believes that Donald Trump<br />is a sociopath and a megalomaniac not unlike other tyrants which we<br />have seen throughout human history.<br />====<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com