IF THIS IS A “PROFESSION”, PROVE IT! IS IT OK TO EXPRESS PERSONAL POLITICAL OPINIONS WHILE PRESENTING ONESELF AS AN “EXPERT” ANALYST?
The American Psychiatric Association seems to be abandoning its “Goldwater Rule” in its code of ethics which cautions “against making public statements about public figures whom they have not formally evaluated”.
According to the “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law“: “We conclude that the Goldwater Rule was an excessive organizational response to what was clearly an inflammatory and embarrassing moment for American psychiatry.”
They (THE JAAPL) see it as a problem because it precludes “…the right to speak one’s conscience regarding concerns about the psychological stability of high office holders…” and conflicts with “… competing considerations regarding one’s role as a private citizen versus that as a professional figure.”
BUT, IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE MARCHING AS “PROFESSIONALS” RENDERING A PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT! Our commentary below photo.
Shrinks take to streets to demand ‘narcissistic’ Trump’s ouster
No doubt the ensemble includes kazoos and knee mounted cymbals
In the ‘old days’, one would be able to say with widespread support and agreement that these so-called “mental health professionals” are actually mental health cases.
However, by today’s very elastic standards, the American Psychological Association would be more likely to determine they are just suffering “Trump Dysphoria”.
While abandoning their “profession’s” own rules of conduct (e.g.. the “Goldwater Rule) they appear to be behaving worse than their most unhinged patients. The “new definitions” the APA seems to be generously adopting these days would characterize this group’s behavior not as symptomatic of a serious emotional disorder but rather that of victims of “professional dysphoria”.
According to the APA, “dysphoria” is when a person exhibits many of the characteristics of a mental disorder… ” distress, disability, etc”… much like what these people are exhibiting in the extreme as they march in public demanding, on the basis of a ‘mail order’ diagnosis, the removal of the duly elected president of the United States.
Ah, but not so fast, the APA might say. These proud members of this “profession” are actually experiencing most or many of those symptoms of a disorder not because they are unhinged, but actually only because the general population sees them and treats them as a little “nutty”!
It is likely the APA would apply the same newly adopted definitions they’ve applied to transgenderism in redefining their colleagues’ condition as “dysphoria” rather than “disorder”:
“Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault.
These experiences may lead many…. to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than (non-liberal, our term) persons.”
So see, these “mental health professionals” aren’t nutty…it’s just you darn people see them that way!
DLH
Well I think they are nuts. The world is so fragile by their thinking. Trump assumes that those who dish it out can take it.
By the way — looking at the banner they march behind – The Duty to Warn. Here is a Wikipedia entry regarding it:”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_warn”. I am sure they marched against state laws saying not duty to warn about HIV transmission.
Recent consideration of applying the duty to warn has raised questions regarding therapists’ responsibility to breach confidentiality in order to report clients’ nonviolent behaviors which may pose danger to others, as in the case of clients with HIV/AIDS.[4] Clients with HIV/AIDS who are sexually promiscuous or share needles may pose risks to their companions, who may be unaware of the client’s health condition. Although the possibility of infection that may result is a factor of concern, the duty to warn currently does not prescribe breaking confidentiality in these cases. In such cases, there may be uncertainty regarding potential victims and, perhaps, ignorance about the occurrence of behaviors that would pose the danger of transmission. Furthermore, many states prohibit the disclosure of information about HIV/AIDS.[citation needed]
The application of duty-to-warn laws places clinicians in the uneasy situation of breaching the client’s confidentiality or of placing others in potential danger of the client. In either case, the therapist’s decision may make place himself at risk, professionally and legally, especially since the clinician has no certain method for determining a client’s potential for violent behavior. The application of the principle may be difficult in particular situations; however, if the clinician has reasonable cause to think that danger is imminent, the clinician is required to break confidentiality for the safety of others.