What are Harvard psychiatrists thinking regarding Trump?

[birchswing]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-donald-trump-mental-stability-a7482586.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html

This makes very little sense to me and seems very desperate for what I can see as 0% chance of benefit.

What authority would Obama have to order a neuropsychiatric evaluation of an incoming president, who could compel the incoming president to consent to such an exam, and to whom would the results be significant? I feel like this would be kind of embarrassing to publish, but maybe they're surrounded by people cheering them on?

I assume I generally share their world view to a large degree on politics, but it does make me wonder if people get more and more deluded as to their power at the upper echelons of whatever organization they're in, not sure if it's specific to academics or not.

Personally, I feel like Trump has been fairly deliberate in his erratic behavior. He can certainly turn himself "off" when he wants (like in the black church when he was asked to stop campaigning by the pastor). Not at all a pardon of his behavior, but it seems self-serving rather than pathological.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Shikima]

Harvard Psychiatry sour grapes.

 

[hamstergang]

Just because the word psychiatrist is in the title doesn't make it relevant to this forum. I don't know that I ever cared what Harvard psychiatrists were thinking.

 

[erg923]

What universe do these people live in to think that Trump is the first president to have pathological levels of narcissism?

 

[birchswing]

The fact that an incident in which thousands of psychiatrists commented on the mental health of a presidential candidate led to a guideline precluding such a practice makes this story relevant to the field of psychiatry.

This is not the first time Harvard doctors have commented on his mental health. The Dean of
Harvard Medical School diagnosed Trump as having NPD on Twitter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-its-doctors-no-psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/

The letter they wrote was disingenuous in stating that they cannot make a diagnosis but then implying there is a diagnosis to be made, especially when the faculty have already been outspoken about which diagnosis they think he has.

I am sympathetic to anyone who wishes he hadn't been elected. But there are so many ethical issues here. First, what is the implication of alleging someone has a mental illness? Is it meant to say someone with a certain mental illness is not fit to serve? I mean you can make that argument, but you need to make it rather than equating mental illness with a general aspersion. You need to differentiate between treated and untreated mental illness. You need to address the general question of whether all presidential candidates should go under mental health screenings or just the ones who appear kooky from a distance. Given that the president is also commander in chief, it's not a completely radical notion as other military personnel are subject subject to background checks including mental health history. But to make it about one candidate based on distant observation is not compelling to me.

This is also odd and relevant because of the existing guideline. Why try to skirt the guideline? What is the pay-off? What does it say when a number of powerful faculty and even a dean try to use diagnoses as weapons? What could they gain when it seems to me, at least, that they lose a good amount in credibility?

For the record I was a Bernie primary voter, Clinton general election voter. This isn't to defend Trump.

 

[Shikima]

It's only an issue because of politics. Wasn't an issue before.

 

[Information Underload]

They're all a bunch of narcissists at this level--perhaps not NPDs, though. Hillary Clinton was and is narcissistic in the way she has conducted herself throughout her life. How do you sign the bottomline that says, yes, I see myself as qualified above all others to lead the nation and will spend hundreds of millions of other people's money doing it without a degree of narcissism? And these smug academic types are the worst. They're the same smug a-holes who were mocking Trump and clearly had no clue about the mindset of the populace.

I had issues with the way these same individuals began talking about Charlie Sheen without ever examining the guy, as well. It's one thing to speculate, but when you start speculating in front of a camera, it seems a bit much, doesn't it?

 

[deleted736562]

Things like that would only serve to tarnish psychiatry. I wish they would just keep it to themselves. I don't think politicians should require a "capacity consult" before they run for office.

 

[FranzLO]

I really hate how this nonsense won't go away. And whats worse is that people feel the need to discuss it and continuously share their opinions, while also assuming they are discussing them with people who agree.

 

[Amygdarya]

Maria Oqiendo, current APA president, spoke against "diagnosing" Trump this summer: https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/08/the-goldwater-rule

 

[st2205]

The fact that an incident in which thousands of psychiatrists commented on the mental health of a presidential candidate led to a guideline precluding such a practice makes this story relevant to the field of psychiatry.

Maybe, but with 76% of psychiatrists being Democrats (and I'd hazard a guess the other 24% aren't flaming conservative) and with that number likely skewing harder amongst the coasts and academia, it certainly creates fertile ground for rationalizing why the Goldwater rule is not relevant in this case.

 

[FlowRate]

I usually think of politicians like actors -- diagnosing the role they play says nothing about who they actually are.

As for what that says about these psychiatrists...

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I usually think of politicians like actors -- diagnosing the role they play says nothing about who they actually are.

As for what that says about these psychiatrists...

The most apt definition of politics I ever heard was...

'Politics is show business for ugly people.'

 

[michaelrack]

Maybe, but with 76% of psychiatrists being Democrats (and I'd hazard a guess the other 24% aren't flaming conservative) and with that number likely skewing harder amongst the coasts and academia, it certainly creates fertile ground for rationalizing why the Goldwater rule is not relevant in this case.

I am flaming conservative

 

[thoffen]

I am flaming conservative

Good. Wouldn't want to flame liberally. Also good to have a fire extinguisher around.

 

[learnmore]

I would never attempt to diagnose a person without a clinical exam... but I feel comfortable positing that the odds ratio of being a "Harvard psychiatrist" and "a narcissist" is actually quite high.

 

[northernpsy]

I would never attempt to diagnose a person without a clinical exam... but I feel comfortable positing that the odds ratio of being a "Harvard psychiatrist" and "a narcissist" is actually quite high.

I absolutely agree with you.

I think it is in very poor taste when psychiatrists try to diagnose people outside of clinical contexts.
I would never speculate on a diagnosis for a public figure, nor someone I talked to at a cocktail party, because we don't have all the information we need in those situations.

Another point to consider is that many psychiatric disorders require that the condition impairs the person's ability to function. I think you could argue that someone who is successful enough in the world to run for president and win is not impaired in functioning. Maybe he or she acts that way not because s/he can't help it but because it works for him/her!

 

[st2205]

I am flaming conservative

As am I.

 

[HarryMTieboutMD]

What is the purpose of this thread? It was started by a non clinician who repeatedly posts nonsense. We already had a post election thread that went nowhere...

 

[FlowRate]

I would never attempt to diagnose a person without a clinical exam... but I feel comfortable positing that the odds ratio of being a "Harvard psychiatrist" and "a narcissist" is actually quite high.

U jelly?

 

[Monocles]

Oh boy.

Current resident at a Harvard program... yup everybody dumps on Trump here, and it's super common for attendings to bring up Trump whenever we have a didactics session on personality disorders. I'm a Bernie-bro who voted Stein in the general so I just mostly just shrug and nod along... Although I've heard of some conservative leaning co-residents who are uncomfortable about this but are afraid to speak up.

 

[deleted736562]

Oh boy.

Current resident at a Harvard program... yup everybody dumps on Trump here, and it's super common for attendings to bring up Trump whenever we have a didactics session on personality disorders. I'm a Bernie-bro who voted Stein in the general so I just mostly just shrug and nod along... Although I've heard of some conservative leaning co-residents who are uncomfortable about this but are afraid to speak up.

Yeah I've seen it too by attendings in didactics. Personally I think it's actually not entirely unreasonable to make educated guesses about people in the public spheres because sometimes we can know enough. The problem is that it's not very professional especially when one goes public about these claims. The bigger issue here though is politicizing psychiatry by 'evaluating candidates' or whatever. That's a terrible way to go down the road. The field is fraught enough with subjectivity as it is right now.

 

[JustAGuy]

She lost. Get over it.

 

[Mad Jack]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-donald-trump-mental-stability-a7482586.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html

This makes very little sense to me and seems very desperate for what I can see as 0% chance of benefit.

What authority would Obama have to order a neuropsychiatric evaluation of an incoming president, who could compel the incoming president to consent to such an exam, and to whom would the results be significant? I feel like this would be kind of embarrassing to publish, but maybe they're surrounded by people cheering them on?

I assume I generally share their world view to a large degree on politics, but it does make me wonder if people get more and more deluded as to their power at the upper echelons of whatever organization they're in, not sure if it's specific to academics or not.

Personally, I feel like Trump has been fairly deliberate in his erratic behavior. He can certainly turn himself "off" when he wants (like in the black church when he was asked to stop campaigning by the pastor). Not at all a pardon of his behavior, but it seems self-serving rather than pathological.

 

[Trismegistus4]

I realize there are probably not many Trump supporters in the psychiatry department at Harvard, but this letter does not appear to be the work of "Harvard psychiatrists" per se. It appears to be some kind of personal vendetta. Of course, the Independent article refers to them as "three leading professors of psychiatry" and as "doctors from Harvard Medical School and the University of California," but there are only three of them, and two are lesbian activists who are "married" to each other; one of them attended Harvard, but the only one of the three who is on the faculty at Harvard is the one who's not part of the couple. Of course, if they actually cared about their own safety, they'd support Trump, the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate ever, who's always been gay-tolerant, over Clinton, who'd continue to increase Muslim immigration, leading to more Orlando-style attacks. But what they really care about is hating America.

 

[hamstergang]

two are lesbian activists who are "married" to each other

I think you mean married.

 

[Trismegistus4]

I think you mean married.

Yeah, I knew someone was going to comment on that. But in an era wherein one can be fired from one's job for expressing that opinion, I'm going to bitterly cling for as long as I can to my ability to express it anonymously on the internet.

 

[DokterMom]

I absolutely agree with you.

I think it is in very poor taste when psychiatrists try to diagnose people outside of clinical contexts.
I would never speculate on a diagnosis for a public figure, nor someone I talked to at a cocktail party, because we don't have all the information we need in those situations.

Another point to consider is that many psychiatric disorders require that the condition impairs the person's ability to function. I think you could argue that someone who is successful enough in the world to run for president and win is not impaired in functioning. Maybe he or she acts that way not because s/he can't help it but because it works for him/her!

- Poor taste? Yeah, probably.

- Ineffective? Almost certainly. (Unless the president has some unknown and unique power to compel another person to undergo a psychological evaluation. And even if definitively diagnosed, it wouldn't change Trump's behavior.)

- Inability to function? - Absolutely! Of course, that would depend to some degree on how you define ability to function. If your sole measure of 'function' is money, power and public acclaim (as Trump's appears to be), then he succeeds. But is building lasting, meaningful, non-exploitive interpersonal relationships is included -- well, there's another story.

- But inaccurate? Not by a long shot! Trump's behavior is the epitome of NPD and could be used as a teaching example. (I'd be willing to bet Trump's public behavior actually is the current most popular 'teaching example' for most lectures covering NPD.)

First, what is the implication of alleging someone has a mental illness? Is it meant to say someone with a certain mental illness is not fit to serve? I mean you can make that argument, but you need to make it rather than equating mental illness with a general aspersion. You need to differentiate between treated and untreated mental illness.

The part you're missing @birchswing is that NPD is not a mental illness, but rather a personality disorder, and one that is extraordinarily resistant to treatment. NPD is just the way he is, and it's something he is not capable of changing, and likely not even capable of substantially modulating. It governs the way he experiences the word and colors all of his perceptions. This is not something that can be fixed...

 

[northernpsy]

ANYONE who wants to use psychiatric diagnosis as a political weapon needs to do some reading on the history of psychiatry. It is very easy for psychiatry to be misused to take away people's human rights and silence political opponents, so it is really irresponsible for clinicians to try to venture into making diagnoses of political enemies. There is a reason why we have to jump through hoops with the courts every time we decide someone needs to be hospitalized involuntarily - because in the past psychiatrists misused their power in society.

For example, just to get started, read up on "drapetomania", the supposed disease of the mind that a doctor in the 1800s blamed for the fact that black slaves would try to run away from the plantation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3106t.html

That kind of thing is why I think it is extremely irresponsible to try to label people we may not like politically as having a mental illness when we are not the treating physician for that person. It would be just as easy to speculate on disorders that Hillary Clinton may be suffering from, if one were so inclined, but it is really not a good idea to go down this road. I think it reflects poorly on these doctors' professionalism that they are letting their dislike of Trump bleed into their work.

I treat my patients the same regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives. In my personal life, I have strong political opinions, but when I am at work, I am politically neutral.

 

[Merovinge]

ANYONE who wants to use psychiatric diagnosis as a political weapon needs to do some reading on the history of psychiatry. It is very easy for psychiatry to be misused to take away people's human rights and silence political opponents, so it is really irresponsible for clinicians to try to venture into making diagnoses of political enemies. There is a reason why we have to jump through hoops with the courts every time we decide someone needs to be hospitalized involuntarily - because in the past psychiatrists misused their power in society.

For example, just to get started, read up on "drapetomania", the supposed disease of the mind that a doctor in the 1800s blamed for the fact that black slaves would try to run away from the plantation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3106t.html

That kind of thing is why I think it is extremely irresponsible to try to label people we may not like politically as having a mental illness when we are not the treating physician for that person. It would be just as easy to speculate on disorders that Hillary Clinton may be suffering from, if one were so inclined, but it is really not a good idea to go down this road. I think it reflects poorly on these doctors' professionalism that they are letting their dislike of Trump bleed into their work.

I treat my patients the same regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives. In my personal life, I have strong political opinions, but when I am at work, I am politically neutral.

This post. Please keep posting these things for the sane. I can't handle the political insanity so I am grateful for people who can and do post like this.

 

[splik]

late to discussion and loathe to resurrect thread, I wrote something on this topic a while back, seems relevant here:

Does Donald Trump have Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Judging by twitter, many people believe the answer to be yes. However, this is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. If you look at the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder you would be right to wonder if it is possible to be a Presidential candidate and not have narcissistic traits. Of course you would have to be preoccupied with success, have a grandiose sense of self-importance, or believe you were special to seek the Presidency. It takes a certain amount of arrogance to be Commander-in-Chief. It is no surprise that people who require excessive admiration or have a sense of entitlement might be drawn to seek the highest office. And, you might be right to believe that others were envious of you. The diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is controversial enough, that it was initially slated for removal from DSM-5 (the most recent edition of the psychiatrist’s diagnostic “Bible”), does not feature in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, and personality disorders expert Peter Tyrer has said the diagnosis has “no scientific basis” and that “it is a diagnosis of vanity for doctors and patients alike”.

The armchair diagnosis of Mr. Trump by public figures such as congresswoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier is nothing more than a slur wrapped up in psychobabble, a political abuse of a psychiatric label. The most famous example of the political abuse of psychiatric diagnosis occurred in Soviet Russia, where political dissidents were labeled with “sluggish schizophrenia” (a diagnosis that was not used outside the USSR) in order to discredit, drug, and dispense with those whose views the political establishment did not like. Donald Trump’s conduct is divisive and abhorrent, and made no more so by dismissing his rhetoric as the product of mental disorder. If anything, it shifts the dialogue away from his controversial policies, fails to examine why his policies have resonated with so many, and stigmatizes those who live with mental illness.

If there were a genuine interest in determining whether Mr. Trump had a mental disorder we would need to know whether his behavior was simply the result of his position of power and wealth, or how much he was influenced by the response to his provocative statements. We would need to know whether his onscreen persona matched the man behind the cameras. For a diagnosis of personality disorder (the validity of which is already questionable), a psychiatrist would need to establish a pattern of behavior dating back to childhood or adolescence. A change in personality over time would suggest a different diagnosis altogether. Psychiatrists never consider just one possible cause for someone’s behavior – they must consider how biological, psychological and social factors influence a person’s actions. A psychiatrist would also need to consider the effects of another medical illness – for example neurosyphilis, traumatic brain injury, heavy metal toxicity, Alzheimer’s Disease, fronto-temporal dementia, cerebrovascular disease and rarities such as the brain sagging syndrome and Fahr’s disease, can all affect personality and behavior – as well as the effects of drugs or alcohol. Finally, not every action we don’t understand is the result of mental illness, nor is everyone we don’t like mentally ill. An armchair evaluation does not allow for a full assessment of the individual and instead provides only a snapshot of a person in a setting where they are under close observation – a fact which itself is known to alter behavior.

Rep. Bass’s call for Mr. Trump to undergo a psychiatric evaluation implies that mental illness should be a disqualification for the Presidency. Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson – two of the most highly ranked Presidents in the history of the Unites States – are believed to have suffered from depressive illness. One study found that as many as 49% of Presidents between 1776 and 1974 suffered from mental illness. A diagnosis of mental disorder should not in itself be a bar to political office. Psychiatrists have no special ability to determine the fitness of an individual for the Office of the Presidency. Instead, we live in a democracy and rely on the electorate to decide. To do otherwise would be an affront to the democratic process. Mr. Trump’s fitness for the Presidency is a matter for the American People, and not for psychiatrists.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

late to discussion and loathe to resurrect thread, I wrote something on this topic a while back, seems relevant here:

Does Donald Trump have Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Judging by twitter, many people believe the answer to be yes. However, this is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. If you look at the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder you would be right to wonder if it is possible to be a Presidential candidate and not have narcissistic traits. Of course you would have to be preoccupied with success, have a grandiose sense of self-importance, or believe you were special to seek the Presidency. It takes a certain amount of arrogance to be Commander-in-Chief. It is no surprise that people who require excessive admiration or have a sense of entitlement might be drawn to seek the highest office. And, you might be right to believe that others were envious of you. The diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is controversial enough, that it was initially slated for removal from DSM-5 (the most recent edition of the psychiatrist’s diagnostic “Bible”), does not feature in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, and personality disorders expert Peter Tyrer has said the diagnosis has “no scientific basis” and that “it is a diagnosis of vanity for doctors and patients alike”.

The armchair diagnosis of Mr. Trump by public figures such as congresswoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier is nothing more than a slur wrapped up in psychobabble, a political abuse of a psychiatric label. The most famous example of the political abuse of psychiatric diagnosis occurred in Soviet Russia, where political dissidents were labeled with “sluggish schizophrenia” (a diagnosis that was not used outside the USSR) in order to discredit, drug, and dispense with those whose views the political establishment did not like. Donald Trump’s conduct is divisive and abhorrent, and made no more so by dismissing his rhetoric as the product of mental disorder. If anything, it shifts the dialogue away from his controversial policies, fails to examine why his policies have resonated with so many, and stigmatizes those who live with mental illness.

If there were a genuine interest in determining whether Mr. Trump had a mental disorder we would need to know whether his behavior was simply the result of his position of power and wealth, or how much he was influenced by the response to his provocative statements. We would need to know whether his onscreen persona matched the man behind the cameras. For a diagnosis of personality disorder (the validity of which is already questionable), a psychiatrist would need to establish a pattern of behavior dating back to childhood or adolescence. A change in personality over time would suggest a different diagnosis altogether. Psychiatrists never consider just one possible cause for someone’s behavior – they must consider how biological, psychological and social factors influence a person’s actions. A psychiatrist would also need to consider the effects of another medical illness – for example neurosyphilis, traumatic brain injury, heavy metal toxicity, Alzheimer’s Disease, fronto-temporal dementia, cerebrovascular disease and rarities such as the brain sagging syndrome and Fahr’s disease, can all affect personality and behavior – as well as the effects of drugs or alcohol. Finally, not every action we don’t understand is the result of mental illness, nor is everyone we don’t like mentally ill. An armchair evaluation does not allow for a full assessment of the individual and instead provides only a snapshot of a person in a setting where they are under close observation – a fact which itself is known to alter behavior.

Rep. Bass’s call for Mr. Trump to undergo a psychiatric evaluation implies that mental illness should be a disqualification for the Presidency. Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson – two of the most highly ranked Presidents in the history of the Unites States – are believed to have suffered from depressive illness. One study found that as many as 49% of Presidents between 1776 and 1974 suffered from mental illness. A diagnosis of mental disorder should not in itself be a bar to political office. Psychiatrists have no special ability to determine the fitness of an individual for the Office of the Presidency. Instead, we live in a democracy and rely on the electorate to decide. To do otherwise would be an affront to the democratic process. Mr. Trump’s fitness for the Presidency is a matter for the American People, and not for psychiatrists.

Agreed. And I'd much rather have an Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill suffering from the mental illnesses that they've apparently suffered from in office than the rank and file 'socialized psychopath' types who like to smile that 'used car salesman' smile, tell you everything you want to hear (on camera), and then quietly, mechanistically, and without any pang of conscience sign papers to slash your throat in the night as a people. In my private life (as well as public life, as a voter), I tend to be far more wary of the 'perfect' people who seem motivated to shove their 'sanity' and 'wisdom' (of how to run your country or your life) in your face than the person who maybe has flaws but isn't trying to sell you a load of bull (including implicitly trying to convince you how perfect they are).

 

[NickNaylor]

Oh boy.

Current resident at a Harvard program... yup everybody dumps on Trump here, and it's super common for attendings to bring up Trump whenever we have a didactics session on personality disorders. I'm a Bernie-bro who voted Stein in the general so I just mostly just shrug and nod along... Although I've heard of some conservative leaning co-residents who are uncomfortable about this but are afraid to speak up.

One of the attendings for the rotation that I was on when the election occurred almost had a full-blown meltdown the day after the election. One of the social workers for our team thought it was reasonable that people get therapy to help them cope with the election results. Huh?

I would describe myself as a conservative, didn't vote, think Trump is a ***** but that Clinton was certainly no perfect candidate. People - these psychiatrists included - need to get over it, stop with the nonsense of pushing for faithless electors, #notmypresident, claims that the US is going to devolve into a KKK-based nation, and just get on with their lives. Take it up in 3 years when we're in the midst of round 2. Hopefully the Democrats will find a more appealing candidate to put forth than someone the likes of Clinton.

 

[birchswing]

double post

 

[birchswing]

double post

 

[birchswing]

This has taken on more of a life than I would have expected. I want to re-iterate, if I didn't say it, that my post was not a critique of people who have a problem with Trump. I am personally upset by his election and concerned for myself and others. His election seems like an unforced error.

My curiosity was more in why someone would trade the capital they've earned in credibility with no chance for a pay-out and whether that is influenced by an organization's culture. But I got some answers to that question in this thread. In retrospect, it does seem hypocritical to judge their judgment when Trump has been so successful with throwing good judgment out the window. I wouldn't say we've entered a new paradigm of rhetoric, but certainly new for this era, led by Trump, and perhaps that means it's krigstid (wartime) as we say in Swedish—a time for all to up the ante.

Someone of high standing in any profession could easily write a critique of Donald Trump without relying on suggestions of a mental illness, but I suppose it wouldn't have made the headlines. And my argument was that they lost credibility in the process. But I guess if I look at Trump I would have previously said no presidential candidate could say what he had and still be a presidential candidate. And I was wrong. So maybe people of all fields can and will behave differently.

 

[FranzLO]

One of the attendings for the rotation that I was on when the election occurred almost had a full-blown meltdown the day after the election. One of the social workers for our team thought it was reasonable that people get therapy to help them cope with the election results. Huh?

I would describe myself as a conservative, didn't vote, think Trump is a ***** but that Clinton was certainly no perfect candidate. People - these psychiatrists included - need to get over it, stop with the nonsense of pushing for faithless electors, #notmypresident, claims that the US is going to devolve into a KKK-based nation, and just get on with their lives. Take it up in 3 years when we're in the midst of round 2. Hopefully the Democrats will find a more appealing candidate to put forth than someone the likes of Clinton.

This. Its funny when threads like this are made because I think they often assume we all have the same baseline for posting in it. The hypocritical nonsense coming from the left would be mind boggling if I didn't expect it. Hopefully threads like this go away so that divisive topics like politics don't take away from the common bond that is psychiatry here? But of course everyone is a political expert now...

 

[SmallBird]

This. Its funny when threads like this are made because I think they often assume we all have the same baseline for posting in it. The hypocritical nonsense coming from the left would be mind boggling if I didn't expect it. Hopefully threads like this go away so that divisive topics like politics don't take away from the common bond that is psychiatry here? But of course everyone is a political expert now...

I agree - we do have a common bond and it is the explicit purpose of this forum. I don't like having to read posts where immigrants are told to leave and patients talk about how they have regional prejudice in choosing physicians. Its not that I now have PTSD or need a safe space - its just not why I come here.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Completely concur with Splik's post above and would add that Donald Trump is a businessman first and foremost. Most hospitals are run by people with similar perspectives and personalities. So are the insureance companies. I asked a friend of mine a question about ethics in business as I was thinking about stealing all of my patients from my company and going solo. His answer was, "what do you mean by ethical? If it's legal, then you can do it, and if it's questionable, get a lawyer to document that it's legal and then you can do it." My only question about all of this is which is worse, the politicians or the businessmen? I don't like Trump either, and am more concerned about potential destruction of environment and wildlife than any other issue, especially whether or not he has a personality disorder. Businessmen have a fairly solid track record of not caring about that.

 

[Ibid]

ANYONE who wants to use psychiatric diagnosis as a political weapon needs to do some reading on the history of psychiatry. It is very easy for psychiatry to be misused to take away people's human rights and silence political opponents, so it is really irresponsible for clinicians to try to venture into making diagnoses of political enemies. There is a reason why we have to jump through hoops with the courts every time we decide someone needs to be hospitalized involuntarily - because in the past psychiatrists misused their power in society.

For example, just to get started, read up on "drapetomania", the supposed disease of the mind that a doctor in the 1800s blamed for the fact that black slaves would try to run away from the plantation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3106t.html

That kind of thing is why I think it is extremely irresponsible to try to label people we may not like politically as having a mental illness when we are not the treating physician for that person. It would be just as easy to speculate on disorders that Hillary Clinton may be suffering from, if one were so inclined, but it is really not a good idea to go down this road. I think it reflects poorly on these doctors' professionalism that they are letting their dislike of Trump bleed into their work.

I treat my patients the same regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives. In my personal life, I have strong political opinions, but when I am at work, I am politically neutral.

I support/agree with all of this. The only thing I would add is that political neutrality is a vote for the status quo. I appreciate you are referring to political neutrality with respect to patient views though.