Skip to main content

Is Trump Mentally Unfit for Office? The Goldwater Rule Violated

Many of my readers do not know who Barry Goldwater was, let alone of the Goldwater rule established by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.  The rule advises against psychiatrists commenting on the mental health of public figures they have not examined.   Obviously, a psychiatrist or any physician who has treated a public figure is prohibited to offer any public comment unless he has been authorized by the patient to do so.  On Tuesday, Dr. Ronny Jackson, the president’s personal physician, will discuss the results of the president’s recent medical examination with the press.  The boundaries of what Dr. Jackson can report will have been set in advance by the president.  


Senator Barry Goldwater

In the past month, the Goldwater Rule has appeared in our newspapers and all over cable news and commentary programs.  Goldwater has probably been a 'trending topic'.  This is in response to suggestions that the president may be mentally unfit for office.  I have heard physicians who have never examined the president making this claim.  And, seemingly beyond the reach of the Goldwater Rule, I have heard pundits and politicians – presumably with no medical training – suggesting or asserting that the president is non compos mentis. 

It is beyond obvious that many of these ‘mental health experts’ are simply using a new tool to attack a president whom they oppose politically or despise personally.  I oppose this practice both as a physician and as a citizen.  We cannot normalize average citizens or medical professionals on the sidelines offering psychiatric assessments of folks they don’t really know.  If this objectionable process were to become accepted, then it would be ultimately applied throughout society.  There would be an inexorable mission creep that would make all of us potential targets of these inquisitions.   If a boss at work, a teacher, an athlete or a customer started arguing, might this individual be labeled by onlookers as having a condition?

This practice disrespects those among us who truly have mental illnesses.  It furthers the societal stigma associated with these diseases that we have all worked hard to reverse.
 
There may be instances when it seems inescapable that a person is psychiatrically afflicted.  For example, folks who claim they are Napoleon, came from another planet or wrap their heads in tin foil likely have some psychiatric dysfunction.  But we don’t make policy based on rare anecdotes.

Mental illness is serious business.  Mental health professionals train for years and throughout their careers to gain and maintain necessary skills for diagnosing and treating these illnesses.  Leave it to the professionals. 

Political adversaries, columnists, cable news jockeys and average citizens have enough fodder to criticize the president without shooting arrows from psychiatric quivers.  

The wisdom of keeping silent is aged and timeless.

Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamaity.
Proverbs 21:23.

   

Comments

  1. @kyste, you are absolutely correct and I am grateful that you pointed out my typo. I hope there will be no harsh judgment waged upon me from on high.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with you in your assessment on how we're assuming things about our POTUS. However, when you look at just the last few months on how the POTUS has berated immigration, Mexico, N.Korea with the childish responses with their leader. If the POTUS acts in this manor it seems to make sense for the rest of us to act the same way towards the POTUS doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good point, Larry. I do think that our standards should be higher. Let's see if our dysfunctional government will shut down on Friday!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although in normal I would agree with you Michael, but this time I have to agree with Larry M. I have had my fill of POTUS and the damage he has done to this country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @bluerose, as usual you bring an artist's humanity to this blog. Neither of us voted for POTUS, but tens of millions of Americans did, who felt cast off by both parties. Personally, I think our legislators on both sides of the aisle are an embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree about both parties. All are more worried about being re-elected to a cushy job then trying to represent and protect the rights of the citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It is beyond obvious that many of these ‘mental health experts’ are simply using a new tool to attack a president whom they oppose politically or despise personally. I oppose this practice both as a physician and as a citizen."

    Dr. Kirsch, you are a gastroenterologist, not a "mental health expert." I realize this is a blog post and, essentially, a personal opinion piece. However, when you comment as a physician and then assail the credibility of other physicians, your own credibility -- in my view -- comes into question. There are a number of unfortunate statements in your post (tin foil hats) and misinformation which do not further or elucidate a definitive judgment about this complex issue (the 25th amendment, Goldwater rule), but instead obsfuscate. Please note, I am NOT defending our president. My personal feelings about him are probably better served in a post elsewhere. I too share the general concern you have tried to express here.

    However, before commenting further on the issue of the assessment of mental health (an area in which I am qualified) in our President, I would urge you to read this piece, written by Michael Smerconish. It is an interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Nassir Ghaemi. I found the thesis quite compelling and plan to read Dr. Ghaemi's book. Perhaps you might like to as well.

    http://www.smerconish.com/michael/mental-health/

    ReplyDelete
  8. George, I thank you for the comment. I never miss watching Smerconish each wk as he is one of the bright lights on CNN, in my view. I did watch the episode where Dr. Ghaemi was featured. I maintain that I do not favor physicians speculating on potential diagnoses of individuals they have not personally examined, which are generally offered without the consent of the target. I think it is irresponsible and has add'l consequences, which I outlined in my piece. Even worse, we read and hear political pundits, presumably with no medical training, offering their medical opinions on the president. The 'tin foil' reference that you cited was merely to admit the obvious - there are instances when a diagnosis of a thought disorder/psychosis can be made from afar even by a layman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for your response. A little too much coffee this morning. I, too, as a mental health professional get quite piqued when print and cable media trot out mental health experts, psychologists and even psychiatrists, to speculate on a psychiatric diagnosis for President Drumpf (his actual birth name - I refuse to acknowledge him and is "stage name" - what does that say about my own mental health?). It is all a rapidly vanishing point. He will never be removed from office for a mental health diagnosis because, as evidenced by our little back and forth, there will never be a disagreement on the nature, level, severity or impact of his supposed impairment. If you have 100 psychologists in a room, you will likely get 100 different opinions, etc. I do have to say that this whole exercise in speculation about the "personality" of the president has really awakened so many who, like me, for most of my life, looked at our American President as an almost "mythic" figure. Thanks for taking the time to respond. All the best to you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary