Well, this is certainly off the rails.
And that’s scary as hell. No code of ethics should care about one thing only. There should always be some sort of balance, some sort of line where you decide it’s better that you do this one lesser evil to avoid a greater evil.
The goal in psychology cannot be “to treat people.” There has to be an underlying moral foundation for why, presumably to reduce suffering or to increase happiness or make a better world or something like that. And all of those things have other issues that would need to be considered and balanced
For one thing, is it good for our collective mental health that someone so unstable and erratic is in charge? There was already an uptick in people seeking help for mental health problems when Trump was just running, just from what he was doing then. Now he’s even worse, and people seem more angry and more unable to cope than before.
And that’s just the most connected thing I could think of, something that I would hope every psychologist would care about. But there is just so, so much more. I actually decline to take the time to write them all out again simply for my own mental health. They’ve been repeated over and over. Trump is just a genuinely hurtful person who has been rewarded by society, making so many more people think that it’s okay to hurt people. (I lost friends over people wishing harm on the protesters, for example.)
It’s not about throwing psychology under anything, nor is it about political ideals. How bad Trump is transcends politics. Trump could be the most liberal person I know but his instability would be bad for this country. His fundamental lack of empathy is dangerous.
And given how much sway psychologists had back with Goldwater, I’m nearly certain that, if not for this “rule” they created, they could have stopped this, since they have at least some pull. I hate every person with influence who refused to fight against him.
And I for one find psychology harmed by their lack of action. I think I might just now be able to go to someone, if I could be sure they actually were ethical, and not just agreeing with a rule. Because that’s what it is. A rule. They could get in trouble for not abiding by it.
And it’s just natural to create reasons why following that rule is the right thing to do, to ease any cognitive dissonance. I wonder how many psychologists would agree if they were free to make up their mind without that pressure.
I genuinely hope it is less than those who made what I believe to be the wrong choice. Just like I thought it was wrong for anyone who oppose abortion to use that as a reason to support Trump.
BigT, I hope you get some help if you need it, but I’ve got to say, Spice appears to clearly hold the ethical position here, and besides that, psychologists pretending to make a diagnosis on cable TV are utterly unconvincing for anyone who’s not a hardcore partisan.
HD - please take a look at the link below. Do you believe Dr Dekleva did something unethical?
Are you serious? It’s as plain as the nose on your face to anyone who’s taken Psych 101, let alone spent years of study. You can haggle about ethics all you want, which is merely another attempt at distraction from the basic fact that Trump is blatantly and classically narcissistic and a serial liar, both to a possibly dangerous extent.
I would argue that there’s nothing wrong with someone offering an opinion on the matter as long as it is clearly understood to be such and not in any way a professional diagnosis, even if the person offering it is an “expert”. Anyone purporting to be making an actual medical or psychiatric diagnosis without meeting and examining the patient in an official capacity is wrong to do so.
Sounds reasonable. I might be more inclined to consider the merits of attempting to diagnose someone you’ve never met, if there was any indication at all it would accomplish anything.
Let’s pretend for a minute that Trump exhibited textbook symptoms of multiple sclerosis. A group of medical doctors gather together, go on TV, and say, “While we have not examined the patient, we’ve been watching him in the media, and it is our collective official medical opinion that Trump has MS. It’s clearly affecting his ability to do his job effectively and putting the country in danger.”
What is the outcome here? Do you imagine anyone caring that doesn’t already think he has MS? Do you think people who voted for him will change their minds about his competence? Cuz here’s my guess on how this would play out :
Liberals: I knew it! That fucker has to go!
Conservatives: Fucking quacks. The whole medical profession is a sham.
Government: meh
There is no evidence in the history of the election or Trump’s presidency that facts or professional consensus have any bearing whatsoever on how people feel about him. We had an entire cadre of GOP foreign defense experts sign a petition declaring him unfit for the presidency, something that has never happened in the history of this country, and it didn’t matter. Why on earth would anyone care what some psychologists think?
There’s one theory that it was a cover story in the Hollywood Reporter that secured Wolfe this access.
While the story itself was apparently not exceptionally flattering, the cover of the magazine featured an artistic rendering of a picture of Trump wearing mirrored sunglasses - it made him look cool. Ergo, somebody in the West Wing thought this guy was going to do a flattering portrait of all of the “greatness” going on, so he got an up front and close look.
heh - that’s what they get for not reading
Here is the actual article. It’s not horrible, but it’s not a love fest either.
Some excerpts…
Actually, that was covered in The West Wing. The President (Martin Sheen) had MS and didn’t tell anyone. And his doctor wife (Stockard Channing) was treating him secretly.
A big and important difference: MS does not make you a danger to the security of the country the way being a babbling, mentally deficient, nutso, narcissistic, unbalanced, short-tempered fruitcake does.
Not a good comparison.
Wolff didn’t say his book was bullshit, but he Did say the claims in it cannot be verified. To me, that makes it gossip. C’mon, dopers, we don’t have to lower our standards to find ways to criticize this awful president.
Is Trump getting worse? I dunno. He introduced himself to politics with “Mexicans are rapists,” and has pretty consistently been an asshole ever since. Worse how?
And, HD used the phrase “liberal California.” HD, for the sake of clarity, would you PLEASE define the word “liberal” for me? Don’t say, “Democrats” or some other contentless dodge. I really want to know, so please really, actually tell me.
Then substitute any medical condition that does.
What is the upshot? What is the outcome of a bunch of professionals diagnosing someone they have never treated or evaluated? What changes occur in society, the public dialog, the government as a result of this?
I was quoting the LA Times. It’s the headline they stuck on the op-ed.
I don’t want you to feel like I’m dodging your question (although in the past I’m pretty sure that I’ve posted that I see the general use of “liberal” as nearly-synonymous with “left-wing” or “Democrats”), so to get to you answer: How would HD define liberal? Off the top of my head, I’d say “liberal” is a political label for the left wing of the American political spectrum. Generally it favors gun control, easier access to abortion, more concern for the environment, a desire to use government resources and policies to provide additional assistance to the poor or otherwise disadvantaged, and a strong urge to view things through a racial lens.
ETA: That’s almost certainly not perfect, but I think generally gets at some of the main themes.
I posted about that ten days ago (in the BBQ Pit) --Hope Hicks was, apparently, the particular West Wing person who was impressed by the “cool” cover. Neither she nor Trump himself, quite obviously, had read the story–which was not flattering to Trump. They both just figured ‘the cover makes Trump look ‘cool’ so the author must be a Trump-supporter’…which would win for Bad Reasoning Choice of the year, if there weren’t so many other entries!
Thanks.
Is it an all of the above kind of thing? For example, the “shithole countries” thing certainly seems to be “viewing things through a racial lens.” Somehow I doubt you will accept that Trump and half his supporters are liberals, so how do I parse that? Seems like “sympathy for all races” gets turned into “viewing things through a racial lens,” while, say, white supremacy is somehow a different case.
Thump has shared more of his thoughts and beliefs in public than most people do in [del]years[/del] decades of therapy. He lets it all hang out. He holds back nothing. He hides nothing. He is Carl Rogers’ dream of free association. He has a thought [sic]-- he urps it out. No one needs to meet him in the flesh to get a sense of what kind of a person he is. Do you honestly think a doctor could possibly know any more about thump in one or ten visits than every single person who has access to Twitter knows about him right this minute?
The outcome is that it isn’t just a bunch of random guys in a bar saying he’s nuts; it’s people who really KNOW what it is to be nuts saying he’s nuts. I think that’s a good thing.
Is there any evidence that Trump ever even saw the cover, or that he concluded it made him look cool? You said “They both just figured” and “Hicks and Trump assumed”. What evidence is there that these assumptions were shared by Trump, and not just Hicks?
Well, Gyrate’s scenario works fine for me.
FWIW, I’m well aware that Trump is nuts. It baffles me that this is not evident to everyone. It baffles me that anyone would need a psychological diagnosis to take that notion seriously.
Works for me, too.
Most people are really ill-informed and unaware. Times 10 when it comes to mental health issues. The mind, emotions, feelings, behavior, what goes on inside people–it’s just a Big Black Box with a question mark on all sides.