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.
I think it's Proverbs 21:23
ReplyDelete@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.
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Larry. I do think that our standards should be higher. Let's see if our dysfunctional government will shut down on Friday!
ReplyDeleteAlthough 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@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.
ReplyDeleteI 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"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."
ReplyDeleteDr. 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/
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.
ReplyDeleteThanks 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