Ending a longstanding prohibition on allowing psychiatrists to diagnose in public individuals’ mental health, the 3,500-member American Psychoanalytic Assn. decided it was in the public interest to end the Goldwater Rule. Motivating the change-of-heart, looks like prejudice against 71-year-old President Donald Trump who became the object of considerable professional speculation from backers of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary didn’t hesitate in stump speeches and in the debates to questions Trump’s mental fitness for duty. Questioning Trump’s character or mental health became the favorite pastime of anti-Trump so-called experts, asserting, like Hillary, that Trump was a danger to the country. When you consider the kind of mental health problems within the psychiatric profession, exploiting professionals for political purposes is irresponsible.
Any known psychiatric diagnoses have little value other that stirring the pot for public consumption. When you hear labels like narcissism, psychopath or bipolar disorder bandied about on radio and TV talks shows, it cheapens the psychiatric professions, making it look sanctimonious or outright oblivious to their own shortcomings. Saying the “belief in the value of psychoanalytic knowledge in explaining human behavior, “ Chicago psychoanalyst Dr. Prudence Gourguechon thinks it’s in the public interest to let members speculate on public figures. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly,” said Gourguechon, rejecting the Goldwater Rule. Because the public’s ignorance of psychiatric diagnosis, the Goldwater Rule tried to keep speculation private, rather than create misunderstandings without in-depth professional knowledge.
Going on TV and radio talk shows to hazard opinions about psychiatric diagnosis cheapens mental health professions, opening it up wider criticism. Already controversial in nature, psychiatric diagnosis is best reserved in the privacy of doctor-patient relationship, for the expressed purpose of offering treatment options, including psychotherapy and medication. “Since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before” in a commander in chief, Gourguechao already exposed her bias against the president. What the Goldwater Rule attempted to do was not “gag” mental health professionals from diagnosing in public, it was to prevent the media from exploiting the profession. Listening to psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers speculate about the mental health of public figures degrades mental health professions, turning psychiatric diagnosis political.
Harvard Medical School Psychiatrist Dr. Leonard Glass agreed that psychiatrists shouldn’t be muzzled from hazarding diagnoses in public. Saying reporters “have been stumbling around trying to explain Trump’s unusual behavior,” again reveals Glass’s bias, not his professional opinion about Trump’s diagnosis. Speculation why the president communicates through twitter or his decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey does not require a psychiatric diagnosis. Glass wrote in the Psychiatric Times last week that “an unacceptable infringement on my right and duty,” to discuss issues “where the perspectives of psychiatrists could be very relevant and enlightening,” as if Glass has some “duty to warn” the public. Mental health practitioners are no different than any other partisan groups, using their psychiatric toolbox to render political opinions based on speculation.
Whatever one thinks of Trump’s politics, it’s a slippery slope to let mental health professionals appear on national TV and radio talk shows, pretending to have definitive diagnostic information about the president. Psychiatric diagnosis has been subject for decades of controversy over the damage created to patients and their treatments. Letting psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers run wild in the media subjects them to growing liability, especially for slander or libel, when you consider the consequences of going public with psychiatric diagnoses. Most people know that psychiatric diagnoses are far more speculative than medical diagnoses, where verifiable exams, like X-rays and blood tests, determine conditions. Psychiatric diagnoses are subjective in nature, frequently diverging even among practitioners with the same training, from the same institutions.
Of all the psychiatric groups, none is more speculative than the American Psychoanalytic Assn., built on the works of Sigmud Freud and his followers. Even if you’re a diehard psychoanalyst, the methodology and practices are over 100 years old, frequently called obsolete in today’s emphasis on neuroscience. Letting analysts hazard views about public figures offers no more public safeguards, only lets naïve practitioners get sucked into politics. “In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment,” said Glass, once again, showing his extreme prejudice against the president. Glass’s hyperbole exposes his bias, making any of his psychiatric speculations worthless. Mental health professionals offer their best service in confidentiality, keeping diagnoses and treatments in private consultation rooms.
[
