It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.
The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA's ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.
...
"The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement," said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. "APA stands behind this rule."
...
...
It was actually psychiatrists who initiated and carried it all out on such a massive scale. Nazis were the first in history to use extermination camps and all done with such chilling organization.
The two main areas that psychiatrists concentrated on were sterilization and euthanasia. They were responsible for reporting these “patients” over to the authorities and from there, to the gas chambers, killing over 200,000 people deemed mentally ill. These included many thousands of feeble-minded children. The real intention was to rid the master race of “undesirables.”
Psychiatry expanded their vast control by broadening the definition of mental illness to include political disobedience. Thus, psychiatry became a tool of and ally to the government, particularly the Nazi-controlled regime.
...
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Great thread and well put together. Although I completely disagree with pretty much all of it in the context that you used, I feel it would be better to just say that all party’s in all governments do this.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They must really hate freedom of speech.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They must really hate freedom of speech.
Do you consider a medical diagnosis, "freedom of speech"?
Just curious.
As a big proponent of freedom of speech I would have never considered a diagnosis to be that.
originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They must really hate freedom of speech.
Do you consider a medical diagnosis, "freedom of speech"?
Just curious.
As a big proponent of freedom of speech I would have never considered a diagnosis to be that.
Actually, a medical diagnosis is protected by HIPPA. So it is kind of the opposite of free speech.
originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist
And with thanks to HIPPA, the patient has the right to privacy.
That being said, I believe someone as maligned publicly as President Trump has been should be able to seek charges with regards to violating HIPPA privacy laws.
Even a Pharmacist who carelessly discusses your medical condition too loud can be in hot water, so the "psychiatrists" who've made their claims public should be as well. Highly unprofessional. Highly careless. Highly punishable.
We can talk about the ethics of professionals doing such speculating, and I personally find it out of order when they do.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DBCowboy
Speculating on someone’s mental/physical health is not a diagnosis though, is it?
That can only be done by a person’s actual doctor.
And because a diagnosis is a confirmation of an illness/condition.
Any speculation is by definition unconfirmed.
We can talk about the ethics of professionals doing such speculating, and I personally find it out of order when they do.
Silencing them for it is just way too despotic for my liking.
originally posted by: rickymouse
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Great thread and well put together. Although I completely disagree with pretty much all of it in the context that you used, I feel it would be better to just say that all party’s in all governments do this.
Psychologists have rules for their practice. By using their crudentials to diagnose someone they have not even met and talked to personally, they have broken those rules. They actually should lose their license to practice. There are also confidentiality rules that restrict them from diagnosing a person and making it public, even if it is not their patient. They are supposed to be professionals, not use their license to practice to bash government officials they never met in person.
If they start bashing government officials they might lose their funding for mental health from the government, the government can go back to government funded mental health again for all people on their assistance programs and medicare. Also, they can stipulate that Obamacare needs to go through the government programs to be paid for.
They're trying to warn their members is a smart move.
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DBCowboy
Speculating on someone’s mental/physical health is not a diagnosis though, is it?
That can only be done by a person’s actual doctor.
And because a diagnosis is a confirmation of an illness/condition.
Any speculation is by definition unconfirmed.
We can talk about the ethics of professionals doing such speculating, and I personally find it out of order when they do.
Silencing them for it is just way too despotic for my liking.
When anyone in that certain field declares it , it is a violation of the HIPPA Act . They have just announced a diagnosis . Their official diagnosis
Joking or not...
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DBCowboy
Speculating on someone’s mental/physical health is not a diagnosis though, is it?
That can only be done by a person’s actual doctor.
And because a diagnosis is a confirmation of an illness/condition.
We can talk about the ethics of professionals doing such speculating, and I personally find it out of order when they do.
Silencing them for it is just way too despotic for my liking.