I understand what you are saying that is is unethical to diagnose somebody from afar, especially if it's somebody you are not and will not treat. I also understand that family members can misdiagnose or confuse symptoms in their loved ones. But for mental health professionals like yourself, can't you tell or have a strong suspicion about a particular mental health issue by the person's behavior and the way they act? Can you make a prediction or have an inclination before a clinical interview? I am not talking about this for the sake of diagnosing either. It's like if a young person goes to the ER with chest pain, the ER doctor is not going to test him for hepatitis. It seems like you could rule out a lot and have some reasonable hunches before the clinical interview.
DUTY TO WARN is part of the profession - regardless if you approve or not. If it applies to an individual, why would it not apply to more than one individuals if a professional suspects the person could harm them or be a threat.
Its rather silly to say you can help save one person but must ignore far larger numbers.
These are brave patriots with professional mental health credentials evaluating Trump based on thousands of hours of public revelations that can tell you more about a person that a possible fifty minute personal session.
Duty to warn does not apply here. What you are claiming is not how that procedure works. As one who used the duty to warn process on many occasions, including twice this past week, the scenario that is placed in front of us does not apply. As clinicians, the people who signed the position have no professional standing to issue a duty to warn decree. Trump is NOT their client and they have not had any diagnostic interactions with which to make such a statement.
Ah, no. These are people who don't like Trump and who are, unethically, using the power of their profession to make statements that can be misconstrued by people. If Trump were smart, he could have a lawsuit against them. And no, public presentation gives part of the story, but does not allow the clinician to actually use their professional skills to make diagnostic assessments through interaction.
The Hippocratic oath to First Do No Harm — sworn to Apollo the physician — has been turned into a self-serving hypocritical oath, charges Dr. John Gartner, a psychologist and former faculty member at Johns Hopkins Medical School. “The American Psychiatric Association looks out for the welfare of its members, to protect them from lawsuits. They’re not worrying about whether 300 million Americans are vulnerable to the life-and-death actions taken by this abnormal president.” And he and an increasing number of his colleagues are ready to declare that President Trump, whose actions are often described with neutral terms like “unprecedented,” is in fact dangerously ill. “Does Trump need to lie to my face for me to know he lies all the time?” asks Gartner. Now in private practice in New York City, he answers his own rhetorical question. “He does lie to my face — every night. I watch TV!”
Currently professor of psychiatry at New York University and longtime director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, Gilligan contends that a private interview is not necessary to assess Trump’s dangerousness: “He publicly boasts of violence and has threatened violence. He has urged followers to beat up protestors. He approves of torture. He has boasted of his ability to commit and get away with sexual assault.” The danger is visible to everyone, but for professionals, he says, it is “irresponsible” to remain passive in the face of it.
“Professional ethics matter,” Lifton told the conference. The question is how the ethics are framed— “technicized” as in the Goldwater Rule or seen as a larger obligation. Mental health experts, he says, have an ethical requirement to expose “malignant normality,” the adaptation to and normalization of dangerous behavior that occurs in the absence of speaking up. “It’s important for professionals to point out Trump’s assault on reality and his attempts to impose it on the rest of us.”
Five minutes ago, Trump just tweeted about the Thursday Comey testimony.
If Trump ever has a sanity hearing, this will be used as evidence to prove he suffered from serious mental delusions.
This is simply beyond belief that the man could look at those events as TOTAL AND COMPLETE VINDICATION.
Trump is truly mentally ill.
And they are not even doing that at this point. Never has so little been accomplished in the first five months of a term as what we have seen with Trump.
The only thing they can crow about was making Borscht the official soup of the USA replacing chicken noodle. (thats a joke to those ready to ask for proof)
What specifically does Trump need vindication from. Which part of "he's not under investigation" did you not understand? As for sanity issues, my suggestion is that all of those who seem so obsessed with Hillary Von Pantsuit's defeat should perhaps seek counseling.
Surely you jest. We now have a conservatively tilted US Supreme Court, we are exiting the Paris Accord. We have pulled out of the Pacific trade agreements....those accomplishments alone are major. Then there is the fact that we are now enforcing our immigration laws. What did "Hussein Obama" accomplish in his first 100 days?
All that meant was that Trump was not the subject of the investigation at that time ... which can change on a dime depending on developments. You can NOT be a subject on Monday but then on Tuesday find yourself being investigated because of new developments. So for Trump to pretend that this is some great exonerating badge of honor equal to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is a red herring of the worst sort and the claim means nothing.
Comey simply provided his own conversation which was not classified.
Come clearly said Trump did just that - several times in fact - and then fired him when he would not comply with the directive.
But then the Russian collusion investigation has been going on for at least seven months. I know that the left is slobbering on their shoes hoping for Trump to be implicated somehow...however most witch hunts end poorly for you.
Comey certainly did not say that.
"Again, I take the president's words. I know I was fired because of something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that."
“I was fired in some way to change … the way the Russian investigation was being conducted," he said later in the hearing. "That is a very big deal.”
On your planet, it appears some people aren't smart enough to know an impeachment is the political equivalent of an indictment.
What happened at the senate trial?
Oh Yeah: Clinton Acquitted on All Counts.
You can, as they say, look it up.
If you have the tools
on your planet.
Foolish, yes. Anything to do with running the country or cause of impeachment? Laughingly no.
He was impeached by the House, yes, or no. I won't wait for your reply.
Nobody is above the law. Is it ok for a President to commit perjury and obstruct justice?
Lets look at the Comey testimony
That is pretty clear. And the Trump interview with Lester Holt in which he confessed that Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey confirms it.
If it has nothing to do with his job there is no reason for him to be impeached for it.
Duty to warn does not apply here. What you are claiming is not how that procedure works. As one who used the duty to warn process on many occasions, including twice this past week, the scenario that is placed in front of us does not apply. As clinicians, the people who signed the position have no professional standing to issue a duty to warn decree. Trump is NOT their client and they have not had any diagnostic interactions with which to make such a statement.
And that is as good a reason as any to fire Comey. Despite the fact that Comey had told Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation, he was not sharing that with the American public. That was leaving a cloud over the Trump administration which made it difficult to get some things done.
Ah, no. These are people who don't like Trump and who are, unethically, using the power of their profession to make statements that can be misconstrued by people. If Trump were smart, he could have a lawsuit against them. And no, public presentation gives part of the story, but does not allow the clinician to actually use their professional skills to make diagnostic assessments through interaction.
Brave American patriots who oppose Trump know the highest ethical standard - the love of our nation and its people.
:roll:yes, like those people who opposed trump and destroyed private property
There is no investigation of Trump.
Keep repeating that silly mantra and it may give you some faux semblance of temporary security.
your postings are so easy to discredit
RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation
RNC: Comey testimony proves Trump not under investigation | TheHill
Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal
Donald Trump not under investigation by FBI over Russia ties, James Comey's testimony to reveal | The Independent
Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation
Comey confirms telling Trump he was not under investigation
you owe Fishking and apology
Perhaps you can take some advice from Lewis Carroll and start at the beginning. What statement from me are you disputing?
There is no investigation of Trump.
Keep repeating that silly mantra and it may give you some faux semblance of temporary security.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?