One Month into his term, Trump goes....back on the campaign trail?

[Aroura]

Understanding Trump’s narcissism could be the key to opposing him

Making a formal diagnosis without an assessment would be misguided, but in some situations, I imagine psychiatrists would be obliged to make their concerns about a politician’s mental health known. If a public official was displaying clear signs of a serious mental illness such as psychosis and had not received the necessary help, psychiatrists should notify the relevant authorities for the sake of the individual as well as the public, so an assessment can be conducted. However, that is not the situation we are in and irrespective of the ethics of their assertions, those who believe that Trump has a mental illness are wrong for the clinical reasons outlined by Frances.

   Trump does have multiple narcissistic traits, he simply does not qualify for a diagnosis of the personality disorder

Trump does indeed have multiple narcissistic traits – the grandiose sense of self importance; the preoccupation with power, success and beauty; the need for admiration and the sense of entitlement – but without distress or impairment he simply does not qualify for a diagnosis of the personality disorder. Furthermore, the speculative diagnosis of malignant narcissism – said to include aspects of narcissism, sadism, psychopathy and aggression – is not recognised in either of the two major diagnostic manuals used by psychiatrists around the world, so should be disregarded. No “alternative diagnoses” allowed.

Declaring Trump mentally ill and calling for his removal may be erroneous and unethical, but we must not close the door on understanding his thinking and predicting his behaviour by shutting down the discourse around his personality.

Right, see, this is why the Goldwater Rule needs to have some clauses about when and how people MUST be diagnosed from a distance, when it is impossible to diagnose them personally.

I understand why it exists, it is basically to prevent mudslinging and smearing. It should NOT be preventing seriously concerned trained professionals from giving their opinions when it is imperative that they do so for the safety of...well....everyone!

---

I wold like to clarify that the Goldwater Rule still applies even if they do not think he has a specific diosrder.

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7.3 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) code of ethics,[1] which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and obtained consent from, to discuss their mental health in public statements.

They are not supposed to give any professional opinion at all, even if it is that he is dangerous, but not certifiably mentally ill.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that he isn't showing distress.  He seems to be showing quite a lot of distress, isn't that is why he's going back on the campaign trail?

Still, the point is, under certain circumstances, mental health professionals NEED to discuss public figures who refuse examination or treatment.