Shrinks ganging up on Trump
by Michael Cook | 21 Oct 2017 |
Duty to Warn, an initiative of clinical psychologist John Gartner, accuses the President of having a narcissistic personality disorder and being delusional and dangerous. Its argument is that under the 25th Amendment Trump should be removed on the grounds that he is psychologically unfit.
As you might expect, this has some support from Democrats in Congress. A Congresswoman from California, Zoe Lofgren, has introduced a resolution asking that the Vice-President and the Cabinet have Trump examined by medical and psychiatric professionals. Her press release states: “Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?
Since the early 60s, the two leading professional groups of psychiatrists and psychologists in the US have observed the “Goldwater Rule”, which barred members from diagnosing public figures. Only the American Psychoanalytic Association, a very small group of psychiatrists, has said that this is not binding on its members.
But some psychiatrists and psychologists are getting restless with Trump’s unconventional behaviour. Yale psychiatrist Bandy Lee has just released a book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” with essays by 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals analysing the President’s fitness for office.
They argue that their “duty to warn” Americans about Trump’s “madness” supersedes professional neutrality. Another even more controversial theme is that his “madness” is catching. From the trauma people have experienced under his administration to the cult-like characteristics of his followers, he has created unprecedented mental health consequences.
One argument against these mental health professionals is that mental illness may not disable a President. Writing in the New York Times, Peter D. Kramer and Sally L. Satel, note that:
But any number of presidents have remained in office despite some level of mental impairment. Historians believe that Abraham Lincoln, for example, had clinical depression. A president can have a mental disorder and, overall, function admirably. In the absence of disability, a president may be inexperienced, indecisive or inept. Psychiatrists would be alarmed if mental illness were considered an absolute bar to public service.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
If you are not inclined to be disputatious, don’t visit Australia at the moment. Across the country is a heated debate about same-sex marriage. According to the bookies, the Yes vote is set to win, although the No vote is giving its opponents a good run for the money. Newspapers are full of op-eds for and against; the broadcast media seems to be only “for”; and Twitter is going wild.
But something equally important is being debated: assisted suicide. The lower house of the state of Victoria yesterday voted for a bill which will legalise it. If it passes, other states will almost certainly follow. It will mark a dramatic turn in Australia’s law and medicine. But – compared to same-sex marriage – almost no one is talking about it.
What accounts for the difference? Oxford bioethicist Professor Julian Savulescu, writing in The Conversation, says that people fear death and like talking about sex and that in evolutionary terms, death is less important than reproduction.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t believe that I agree with his answer. I think that people intuitively understand that control of marriage is the hinge of social life and are reluctant to redefine it.
But what do you think? Why is the debate over same-sex marriage so much more engaging than the equally important debate over euthanasia?
But something equally important is being debated: assisted suicide. The lower house of the state of Victoria yesterday voted for a bill which will legalise it. If it passes, other states will almost certainly follow. It will mark a dramatic turn in Australia’s law and medicine. But – compared to same-sex marriage – almost no one is talking about it.
What accounts for the difference? Oxford bioethicist Professor Julian Savulescu, writing in The Conversation, says that people fear death and like talking about sex and that in evolutionary terms, death is less important than reproduction.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t believe that I agree with his answer. I think that people intuitively understand that control of marriage is the hinge of social life and are reluctant to redefine it.
But what do you think? Why is the debate over same-sex marriage so much more engaging than the equally important debate over euthanasia?
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Xavier Symons | Oct 21, 2017
The Victorian Parliament is close to legalising euthanasia. by Michael Cook | Oct 21, 2017
Families are much more importantby Michael Cook | Oct 21, 2017
An elderly woman with dementia was given a lethal injectionby Michael Cook | Oct 21, 2017
The desperate and indebted are ready to sell their organsby Michael Cook | Oct 21, 2017
The wishes of England's sadistic killer Ian Brady are not being respectedby Xavier Symons | Oct 21, 2017
Marie Stopes has come under scrutiny after a review of one of its clinics. by Xavier Symons | Oct 21, 2017
An Australian couple has discovered they will not be recognised as the parents of their children. by Michael Cook | Oct 21, 2017
And as you might expect, this has some support from Democrats in CongressBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario