AACAP controversy re: humanitarian award to Hillary Clinton

[Monocles]

Hoo boy.

I want to preface this with hoping that we can have a civilised discussion w/o getting too off topic or heated.

Each year AACAP (child psych) gives out a "Catcher in the Rye" humanitarian award to an individual who made "sustained and significant contributions" to children's MH. The controversy is that this year's award was given to HRC. Many psychiatrists are up in arms about this, and there is even a change.org petition circling around condemning this.

How do you guys feel about our "guild" organisations giving awards to political figures who may be deemed controversial? Should merits override potential concerns of political bias?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sushirolls]

[Insert very long negative tirade here]

In grand summary, might have to find this petition.

 

[clozareal]

They gave it to Hilary back in 2004 for her work with CHIP and they've also given the same award to other members of congress for many years. Other than not being sure why they gave it to her again (the only person to get it twice), I don't really care about the political identity of who they give the award to as long as they've made a strong positive impact on children's mental health. But alas, the anathema for HRC is enormous.

I did learn that she adopted a foster child from her speech during that plenary though which I had no idea about.

 

[TexasPhysician]

In my opinion, it is just pandering to politics. It doesn’t matter the party.

Organizations and individuals give money or advertising benefits to politicians. Politicians get elected and then work to pass legislation that benefits those that gave the most. Then the organizations give awards and host benefits to further benefit the politician. Round and round it goes.

Once you understand the game, it isn’t worth emotional energy.

 

[Sushirolls]

In my opinion, it is just pandering to politics. It doesn’t matter the party.

Organizations and individuals give money or advertising benefits to politicians. Politicians get elected and then work to pass legislation that benefits those that gave the most. Then the organizations give awards and host benefits to further benefit the politician. Round and round it goes.

Once you understand the game, it isn’t worth emotional energy.

Guess I'm just an idealistic fool that still believes professions can and should distance from politics. On par with church / state separation.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I don't know enough about it to be outraged or pleased. Hopefully she has indeed done something worthy.

 

[watto]

I saw an interview she did with Chelsea present where she admitted that, when babysitting her grandkids, they had "unlimited Octonauts." Chelsea did not look pleased. Maybe she is secretly part of a covert Netflix pro-screen time lobby.

 

[Mass Effect]

Your post is incomplete. I don't understand the controversy. Is the objection that she didn't do anything worthy of the award? Or is that she did, but they don't like her politics? Or is it that she's too controversial a figure for AACAP (what are the two As for?) to endorse her for anything, worthy or not?

Need more information.

 

[allantois]

Should have given it to Trump, eh?

 

[Mass Effect]

Should have given it to Trump, eh?

I went to the petition. It's basically a bunch of people (and by a bunch, I mean 20) saying that her policies were things they didn't agree with. Basically, she wasn't liberal enough to be given the award. They cite that she didn't want single payor, that she supported the Iraq war, that she supported her husband in restructuring welfare when he was president, and on and on. Of course it's all cloaked in how all these things hurt children, but it really comes down to she wasn't left wing enough (since all of the policies cited are also supported by moderate democrats and just about everyone on the other side of the aisle).

So I don't know? Maybe they could give it to Bernie instead? But then you've got that pesky gun thing...

 

[MedMan80]

In Child fellowship we were extolled the virtues of the Clintons, as during their time they increased funding for Children's MH and paved the way for clinical trials to proceed

 

[Trismegistus4]

I went to the petition. It's basically a bunch of people (and by a bunch, I mean 20) saying that her policies were things they didn't agree with. Basically, she wasn't liberal enough to be given the award. They cite that she didn't want single payor, that she supported the Iraq war, that she supported her husband in restructuring welfare when he was president, and on and on. Of course it's all cloaked in how all these things hurt children, but it really comes down to she wasn't left wing enough (since all of the policies cited are also supported by moderate democrats and just about everyone on the other side of the aisle).

So I don't know? Maybe they could give it to Bernie instead? But then you've got that pesky gun thing...

My thought process was the same as yours: I still think of "people who dislike Hillary Clinton" as being on the right. But with psychiatrists being a notoriously liberal bunch, it didn't seem likely you'd find even a handful of them "up in arms" about her being given an award. Then I did some searching and saw that yeah, the complaint is that she's not liberal enough.

In Child fellowship we were extolled the virtues of the Clintons, as during their time they increased funding for Children's MH and paved the way for clinical trials to proceed

You mean the virtues of the Clintons were extolled to you. Extol is a transitive verb whose object is the thing being praised.

But anyway, it's in the nature of liberalism to keep growing ever-more liberal. Hillary Clinton was a darling of the left during Bill's presidency because she pushed for universal health care (the actual plan she was pushing for was something akin to the ACA.) Now she's a right-wing troglodyte because she doesn't advocate single-payer.

 

[deleted1100659]

Im extremely moderate, pretty much in the center on a lot of things but I was never keen on trump or clinton (either one) to be honest. I have no idea if she did anything to deserve the award or what though, since I really stopped following her after the election period.

Ive always thought it was bizarre that during the primaries the democrats would have like 3 potential candidates (two of them usually there for show, one clear frontrunner) and republicans would have like 15. It made the idea of voting feel significantly more pointless when options are limited.

 

[Mass Effect]

Im extremely moderate, pretty much in the center on a lot of things but I was never keen on trump or clinton (either one) to be honest. I have no idea if she did anything to deserve the award or what though, since I really stopped following her after the election period.

Ive always thought it was bizarre that during the primaries the democrats would have like 3 potential candidates (two of them usually there for show, one clear frontrunner) and republicans would have like 15. It made the idea of voting feel significantly more pointless when options are limited.

I don't want to turn this thread into a political one, but wanted to comment on the above. The Dem field is usually as big as the Republican field. It's just that by the time most people start paying attention, many have dropped out. In 2008, there were about a dozen candidates in the primaries, but after Iowa and NH, the field was narrowed to Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

I wasn't a big Clinton fan either. She was the worst person to go up against Trump. But that said, if you look at the petition, it seems the argument is just that she wasn't liberal enough and they make the connection toward children based on general policies. It's like saying "well this person wanted to drugs and some kids got caught in the crossfire so they don't deserve the award". It's pretty ridiculous an argument and I doubt it'll get much traction from the majority of AACAP.

 

[ridethecliche]

With the current mental health crisis in children, it may have been nice to give the award to someone leading THAT charge instead of revisiting someone. What's the point of giving it to someone twice? Even if she continued the work she'd been doing and done new things, I don't see the point of giving her a 'continuing achievement' award of sorts.

Could they really find nobody better to give it to during this time?
They legitimately could have given it to social workers as a profession for trying to keep putting duct tape on institutional shortcomings.

I don't get it.

 

[Merovinge]

On par with church / state separation.

How's that been going lately in the US?

 

[Stagg737]

Could they really find nobody better to give it to during this time?
They legitimately could have given it to social workers as a profession for trying to keep putting duct tape on institutional shortcomings.

I don't get it.

When in doubt, just follow the money...