Should mental health experts speak out about Donald Trump?

by Marc Wilson / 24 January, 2018
RelatedArticlesModule - Trump mental health

Donald Trump: the “Goldwater rule” gives him some protection. Photo/Getty Images

Psychology professor Marc Wilson assesses whether mental-health experts have an ethical obligation to speak out about the Don.

I’ve been gorging on such news sites as Politico, Slate and the Huffington Post – and as much Fox News as I can stand. And my Stuff app reveals that the wildfires of the Donald Trump Show have reached New Zealand’s shores.

Thanks to Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury and claims that White House insiders routinely question their President’s mental status, these sites are afroth with speculation about the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution. This sets out the rules for presidential succession, including Section 4, which says a President can be replaced if the Vice President and Cabinet believe the incumbent is losing it in the belfry department (which is more colourful than saying Potus is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.) Section 4 has never been implemented for a case of non-physical incapacitation, and the most talked-about instance when it might have been relates to Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s five years after leaving the White House.

Obviously, it would be a pretty big call for any executive to make, and one assumes it would require solid evidence. Therefore, it’s a little surprising that a number of US mental-health experts have gone on record to express their belief that Trump is losing it. Twenty-seven of them, including Dr Bandy Lee, a faculty member of Yale School of Medicine’s law and psychiatry division, last year published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, an edited collection of commentaries that argue the President is a menace.

This is surprising, because of what’s commonly called the “Goldwater rule” – Section 7.3 of the medical ethics relating to psychiatric diagnosis of people who have not been formally assessed by a psychiatrist. It came about after 1964 US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued a publisher over an article presenting a poll of psychiatrists indicating the belief that he was unfit to be President.

Essentially, the Goldwater rule says a psychiatrist should avoid making diagnostic claims about someone based on information in the public domain. The arguments include that diagnosis requires consent, actually sitting down with someone to access all relevant information, and avoiding publicly stigmatising the person in question.

There’s some wiggle room, however, in that a psychiatrist may be able to share professional observations of physical or spoken behaviour and mood without making a diagnosis. Psychologists are governed by a different ethical code that makes similar arguments.

I’d be worried if people were carrying on a public discussion about what I could be diagnosed with. But I’m also not the person who apparently has a bigger nuclear button than North Korea’s Kim Jong-un’s. This is part of the argument that’s developing – whether psychiatrists and psychologists have an ethical obligation to speak out to protect the public from the actions of an unhinged button-wielder.

The Psychiatric Association has gone so far as to address these concerns in a 2017 opinion. It says arguments of free speech are redundant, because only professional diagnostic opinions are prohibited, and other situations involving diagnosis without formal assessment – for example, those that can occur in the criminal justice system – provide a precedent in that they still involve someone with authority providing consent.

Importantly, the association also argues that concern for national security or protection of third parties is no justification for ignoring the Goldwater rule because, again, there is no therapeutic relationship as there might be if a clinician was treating a patient who disclosed they were going to hurt someone.

This article was first published in the January 27, 2018 issue of the New Zealand Listener.

Latest

Why wind drives people crazy
89476 2018-05-20 00:00:00Z Psychology

Why wind drives people crazy

by Marc Wilson

There are few treatises on the psychology of the wind, but there's no doubt it's a stressor.

Read more
What Meghan Markle's racial identity means for the monarchy
91040 2018-05-19 00:00:00Z World

What Meghan Markle's racial identity means for the…

by Joanne Black

The importance of racial identity to Meghan Markle is being closely watched in the US ahead of the royal wedding.

Read more
Swagger of Thieves – movie review
91083 2018-05-19 00:00:00Z Movies

Swagger of Thieves – movie review

by Russell Baillie

A Head Like A Hole doco offers more than noisy nostalgia.

Read more
The great Kiwiana icons: Our most recognisable designs
90729 2018-05-19 00:00:00Z Arts

The great Kiwiana icons: Our most recognisable des…

by Donna Chisholm

A look at New Zealand's most iconic designs and images.

Read more
Diary of a city midwife
91089 2018-05-19 00:00:00Z Health

Diary of a city midwife

by Anonymous

One city-based midwife details her week of 2am phone calls, breastfeeding problems and 5am dashes to hospital.

Read more
Top drops: The best wines for 2018
90873 2018-05-19 00:00:00Z Wine

Top drops: The best wines for 2018

by Paul Tudor

Drinking better wine is easy with Metro’s Master of Wine to steer you in the right direction. Paul Tudor tastes and selects this year’s top drops.

Read more
Crossword 1079 answers and explanations
Fried chicken joint Electric Chicken pops up at Mercury Plaza
91179 2018-05-18 16:34:37Z Auckland Eats

Fried chicken joint Electric Chicken pops up at Me…

by Kate Richards

A new lunchtime greasy spoon opens in Auckland's favourite food court.

Read more