Brings new meaning to the word "expert". Can you imagine the howls of outrage and uproar by the professional psychiatric and psychological societies had a group of psychs made similar claims about Obama? Now... aimed at Trump... not a peep...

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', warn psychiatric experts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-say-psychiatric-experts-130707131.html

Excerpts: 

A group of psychiatric professionals have warned that Donald Trump is dangerously unfit to lead the country.

After a meeting of experts at Yale University yesterday, psychologist Dr John Gartner said of Mr  Trump’s mental health: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump’s dangerous mental illness.”

Dr Gartner, who specialises in Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), bipolar disorder, and depression, leads Duty To Warn, a group of mental health experts who consider Mr Trump – who’s coming up to 100 days in office – an unfit President.

The group believes President Trump suffers from a combination of anti-social personality disorders and extreme narcissism.

He’s the type of person, according to Dr Gartner, who would “routinely violate the rights of others, lie and have no remorse”. [Sorry to interject, but that seems like a perfect description of Hillary and Barack and Eric and Lois and Loretta...].
.....
Dr Gartner set up the Change.org petition aimed at removing Mr Trump from power. [Pretty sure that'll work... it's in the Constitution, right? "A vote of the Senate or a Change.org petition..."]
.....
Not everyone agrees, however. Some other mental health experts argue that it’s impossible to make such a diagnosis without a one-to-one consultation.

Dr Gartner disagrees, saying, “For one thing, research shows that the psychiatric interview is the least statistical reliable way to make a diagnosis.”

[So... the doctor has done with Trump the "statistical reliable" procedures that result in a likely valid diagnosis? Of course not.. he's a "liar by omission"... is that a DSM category?]

One way to become rated an "expert" is to be a Clinton or Sanders supporter and believe that Obama was one of the greatest POTUS to date.   

Obama is a classic narcissist and megalomaniac.  After Trump's joint address in Congress, there was a report on most news agencies on how few times he used the words "I" and "me" compared to Obama's speeches.  Obama always managed to focus every address on himself.  Trump focused on America.

If it takes a "psychologically ill" President to do his job according to the Constitution and his campaign promises, then we need more like him!   

Psychiatry itself is what's dangerous, it's basically religion in disguise, that has furthermore been allowed to infiltrate courts and colleges. If only more of us would realize that...

This "diagnosis" violates the American Psychiatric Association's GOLDWATER RULE.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule,”
which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated. The rule is so named because of its
association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Fact magazine published a survey
in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to
be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/08/the-goldwater-rule[/size]

I do think Trump displays some signs a certain mental illness. I have heard mania offered up as one possibility. Having said that I don't think it is possible, or even that ethical, to diagnose someone as being mentally dangerous this way. Granted Trump is a public person already and as president his every comment and move is watched making it easier to observe signs of a possible mental illness however I still think you need one on one sessions to get a good diagnosis.

On top of that this begs a different question: Should people with mental illness be allowed to be the president? Someone with ADHD or autism for example. Depression, an eating disorder, mania might be able to perform the tasks of a president quite well despite their mental illness though the label of mental illness would get someone a lot of stigma.

The only actual legal recourse I could imagine is if this group could petition the courts to force the president to seek a mental health evaluation from a doctor as would be the case for any one of us normal folk. Even if clinically found to have a dangerous mental illness the doctor or courts couldn't simply remove him from office. Worse case scenario they could confine him to a mental hospital but it would take congressional action to remove his power as president if i understand fully.

I do think Trump displays some signs a certain mental illness. I have heard mania offered up as one possibility. Having said that I don't think it is possible, or even that ethical, to diagnose someone as being mentally dangerous this way. Granted Trump is a public person already and as president his every comment and move is watched making it easier to observe signs of a possible mental illness however I still think you need one on one sessions to get a good diagnosis.

On top of that this begs a different question: Should people with mental illness be allowed to be the president? Someone with ADHD or autism for example. Depression, an eating disorder, mania might be able to perform the tasks of a president quite well despite their mental illness though the label of mental illness would get someone a lot of stigma.

The only actual legal recourse I could imagine is if this group could petition the courts to force the president to seek a mental health evaluation from a doctor as would be the case for any one of us normal folk. Even if clinically found to have a dangerous mental illness the doctor or courts couldn't simply remove him from office. Worse case scenario they could confine him to a mental hospital but it would take congressional action to remove his power as president if i understand fully.

Better question is, should people with no clinical experience refrain from making psychiatric and psychological diagnoses of people they have never met?

Rather than hijack YET ANOTHER THREAD with a general question, when this was obviously a very specific topic concerning Trump and the unethical diagnoses in the article, then perhaps you should start another thread.

Your lack of ability to stop yourself from hijacking threads with tangential questions that don't address the topic probably signifies some deep psychological need to make yourself feel important by redirecting the topic toward a direction that's too ambiguous for anyone to tell you're BSing.

Either that, or you actually do have ADHD and can't focus on anything without your mind involuntarily switching gears to some other subtopic.

But, I'm not a trained mental health professional.

 

Better question is, should people with no clinical experience refrain from making psychiatric and psychological diagnoses of people they have never met?

Rather than hijack YET ANOTHER THREAD with a general question, when this was obviously a very specific topic concerning Trump and the unethical diagnoses in the article, then perhaps you should start another thread.

Your lack of ability to stop yourself from hijacking threads with tangential questions that don't address the topic probably signifies some deep psychological need to make yourself feel important by redirecting the topic toward a direction that's too ambiguous for anyone to tell you're BSing.

Either that, or you actually do have ADHD and can't focus on anything without your mind involuntarily switching gears to some other subtopic.

But, I'm not a trained mental health professional.

The person mention in the article does appear to be qualified to make such diagnoses as a matter of clinical experience but no he should not make a diagnosis of someone he never met. I stated that in my previous reply.

Hijack a thread? What are you talking about? My comments are directly on topic. How about you re-read my comment, then read it again, and keep reading it until you can wrap your brain around the fact that I addressed the very topic at hand. I also addressed the logical next question that stems from what this Dr. is trying to say about Trump.

The person mention in the article does appear to be qualified to make such diagnoses as a matter of clinical experience but no he should not make a diagnosis of someone he never met. I stated that in my previous reply.

Hijack a thread? What are you talking about? My comments are directly on topic. How about you re-read my comment, then read it again, and keep reading it until you can wrap your brain around the fact that I addressed the very topic at hand. I also addressed the logical next question that stems from what this Dr. is trying to say about Trump.

You said it was off topic yourself:

On top of that this begs a different question: Should people with mental illness be allowed to be the president? Someone with ADHD or autism for example. Depression, an eating disorder, mania might be able to perform the tasks of a president quite well despite their mental illness though the label of mental illness would get someone a lot of stigma.

Different = OFF TOPIC.

LOL!!!!!  You need to read your own BS before trying to defend it.

"Should people with mental illness be allowed to be the president?" is a general question, not one related to Trump specifically. 

No wonder you hijack so many threads.  You can't understand what "On Topic" means.

Eyeeatingfish's comments were on topic. Flapp's personal vendetta is what's off topic.

As for his question, well in my opinion psychiatry and the whole idea of mental illness is subjective and not a concrete measurable. So yeah, anyone born in the United States could be president even if they were a babbling idiot or don't speak English, if they were voted in.

You said it was off topic yourself:

Different = OFF TOPIC.

LOL!!!!!  You need to read your own BS before trying to defend it.

"Should people with mental illness be allowed to be the president?" is a general question, not one related to Trump specifically. 

No wonder you hijack so many threads.  You can't understand what "On Topic" means.

Face Palm...

It is a direct corollary from the initial topic. If you could prove Trump had a serious mental illness the next question would inevitably be "What do we do with that knowledge?"

corollary
/kəˈrɒlərɪ/
noun (pl) -laries
1.
a proposition that follows directly from the proof of another proposition
2.
an obvious deduction
3.
a natural consequence or result
adjective
4.
consequent or resultant