McRocket
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2018
- 5,031
- 707
- 275
- Banned
- #1
'...
The new interpretation, barely two months into the Trump presidency, prohibits psychiatrists from discussing “the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation” of a public figure (APA, 2017), in any manner, even in an emergency—effectively silencing the one field that is qualified to comment expertly on a matter of national and international security.
After numerous calls for a discussion, if not a commission, to reexamine the rule and receiving only refusals from the APA, we authors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump submitted a formal proposal for its revision (Lee, 2018). Among us 22 are internationally renowned scholar of political violence and thought reform Dr. Robert Jay Lifton; pioneering researcher of trauma and recovery Dr. Judith Herman; eminent expert on violence Dr. James Gilligan; and Dr. Leonard Glass, former distinguished life member of the APA who resigned over the Goldwater rule expansion.
Keeping the public in the dark not only disempowers but also increases stress and anxiety levels, as both the American Psychological Association (2017) and the American Psychiatric Association (2018) have documented since the start of this presidency. We believe that our role as “witnessing professionals” can help to prevent pathology from being rationalized and normalized, which renders populations vulnerable to would-be tyrants. This is where guarding public mental health supports democracy and where our professional and civic responsibilities merge.
We have a president who has yet to demonstrate the mental capacity to carry out substantial decision-making in a sound, rational, and reality-based manner. He attended a summit with North Korea, a hostile nuclear power, unprepared and unaware of his deficiencies. He woke up one morning and decided to launch a trade war. Now, he has threatened to quit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in the same manner that he has pulled out of other crucial global collaborations. When one has yet to reach a state beyond dependence (where relationships are based on command and obedience) into independence, then the interdependence of global collaboration is threatening and unthinkable.
It is important that we as mental health professionals speak up when we observe that state power is being abused by a mentally unstable president, or when mental defects are being covered up for the purposes of political gain. When a president with such questionable capacity insists on nominating a Supreme Court justice, or holding a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who attacked our 2016 elections, we must alert that those surrounding the president are obviously failing to contain him. We should not deprive the president of the medical standard of care, and lawmakers and the public have a right to the benefits of our expertise. This is how functioning democracies are supposed to work.'
Psychiatrists Challenge a Gag Order
The new interpretation, barely two months into the Trump presidency, prohibits psychiatrists from discussing “the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation” of a public figure (APA, 2017), in any manner, even in an emergency—effectively silencing the one field that is qualified to comment expertly on a matter of national and international security.
After numerous calls for a discussion, if not a commission, to reexamine the rule and receiving only refusals from the APA, we authors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump submitted a formal proposal for its revision (Lee, 2018). Among us 22 are internationally renowned scholar of political violence and thought reform Dr. Robert Jay Lifton; pioneering researcher of trauma and recovery Dr. Judith Herman; eminent expert on violence Dr. James Gilligan; and Dr. Leonard Glass, former distinguished life member of the APA who resigned over the Goldwater rule expansion.
Keeping the public in the dark not only disempowers but also increases stress and anxiety levels, as both the American Psychological Association (2017) and the American Psychiatric Association (2018) have documented since the start of this presidency. We believe that our role as “witnessing professionals” can help to prevent pathology from being rationalized and normalized, which renders populations vulnerable to would-be tyrants. This is where guarding public mental health supports democracy and where our professional and civic responsibilities merge.
We have a president who has yet to demonstrate the mental capacity to carry out substantial decision-making in a sound, rational, and reality-based manner. He attended a summit with North Korea, a hostile nuclear power, unprepared and unaware of his deficiencies. He woke up one morning and decided to launch a trade war. Now, he has threatened to quit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in the same manner that he has pulled out of other crucial global collaborations. When one has yet to reach a state beyond dependence (where relationships are based on command and obedience) into independence, then the interdependence of global collaboration is threatening and unthinkable.
It is important that we as mental health professionals speak up when we observe that state power is being abused by a mentally unstable president, or when mental defects are being covered up for the purposes of political gain. When a president with such questionable capacity insists on nominating a Supreme Court justice, or holding a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who attacked our 2016 elections, we must alert that those surrounding the president are obviously failing to contain him. We should not deprive the president of the medical standard of care, and lawmakers and the public have a right to the benefits of our expertise. This is how functioning democracies are supposed to work.'
Psychiatrists Challenge a Gag Order
