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.

 

APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+42 more 
posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
(Not sure if this was posted. Searched this particular forum and couldn't find this, also using the ATS search engine gave no result for this article)


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."
...

www.psychiatry.org...

The APA released this after several "left-wing psychiatrists" tried to claim that President Trump must be insane/mentally unstable or used some similar label simply because those "left-wing psychiatrists" not only disagree with President Trump's policies, but in general these people in the left want to label anyone who does not kowtow to "left-wing beliefs" for having dissenting views that do not agree with "left-wing ideas and values".

We have seen since the start of the Obama administration and to this day, the DNC/democrats in power, and in general the left trying to label Americans, or legal residents who lean to the right in politics as "a threat to society, progress and the future of the nation". Many left-wing psychiatrists have gone so far as making official comments in which they claim people who lean to the right in politics have one or several mental health disorders, in their attempt to label people who lean to the right as "being insane".

DHS Secretary: Right-Wingers Pose Same Threat As Islamic Extremists

I know some "left-wingers" in the forum are going to say "but he was just talking about right-wing extremists"... Well, let's see who was labeled as a "right-wing extremists" by Obama administration officials.

Ron Paul’s New Organization Reportedly Stacked with Extremists

Under the Obama administration people like Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many others who "dared question Obama's policies" were being labeled as "right-wing extremists".

Some are going to say, "but the SPLC was not an official arm of the Obama administration". That would be true, except that Obama's DOJ Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin, stated that the SPLC had been helping the Obama administration fight extremism in the U.S.

www.justice.gov...

We have also seen the left in general attack websites and news sites that lean to the right by claiming "they are releasing fake news". We also saw sites like Yahoo, Google, Youtube, Fakebook etc censoring the views of people who lean to the right in politics, while claiming that by doing this "they are fighting online extremism/terrorism"... Never mind the fact that for the past 1.5 years the left-wing MSM has the number 1 spot in releasing "Fake News".

Youtube Claims that by Censoring Conservative Videos it is Fighting Online Terrorism.

Not to mention that such sites/social media have hired third party organizations, which are being funded by George Soros and are very left-wing, to "fact check stories".

George Soros is Funding Facebook's Third-Party Fact Checking Organization Targeting Fake News

We have also seen countries like Germany set up a system in which they can sue social media like Fakebook if the Germans don't like anything any Fakebook poster posts, and Fakebook must "get rid of such content" fast or they face lawsuits.

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1152882/pg1]German politician threatens to fine Facebook €500,000 every time it shows fake news[url]


Anyways, if I were to post every single report and statements made by "left-wingers" who want to label people who lean to the right "as extremists, a threat to society, progress and the future" etc etc, it would be a long thread. "Enough is enough". Many left-wing dictators have used in the past these same tactics as they tried to use "psychiatry" as a tool of political oppression. Under communist regimes and even in NAZI Germany, if you dared not to kowtow to "National Socialism" you were labeled as "mentally ill".



...
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.
...


guardianlv.com...

www.psychologytoday.com...

This use of psychiatric labels to oppress political opposition is nothing new, and it seems that the left in general these days are following the same footsteps as past "left-wing dictators". If people don't wake up from this nightmare and realize what is going on, we might wake up in the U.S.A. and anywhere else in the world in which if you have a dissenting view from those who are in power not only are you labeled as "mentally ill" or given a similar label, but you might wake up in a world in which having a dissenting view will send you straight to a psychiatric ward, or worse, to another gulag/concentration camp.




edit on 14-1-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 14-1-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct link.




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Good OP. Should be an interesting thread. Would have been a good Mudpit fest.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
They must really hate freedom of speech.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I couldn't agree more. And frankly, those labeling President Trump (or anyone they have not diagnosed in a professional setting) should be censored for the careless statements they've made. Possibly even punished by the medical board.

Their actions are non-professional at best.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

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.



Good point.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Last I checked, a medical diagnosis was protected under HIPAA (health insurance protection and accountabilty act). Making public a medical diagnosis, outside of the authorized occasions listed in the rule, can result in significant fines, which can multiply for each subsequent improper release. The HIPAA rule is very specific as to when medical information can be released. Hint - political gain is NOT one of those reasons...



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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.


very true. we take it very seriously. fines can be outrageous for each violation, not to mention sanctions from the state board with multiple violations.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Only Psychiatrists are allowed to comment on Human Nature.

bah.

Read Ken Kesey's book, "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest".

Guldarn control freaks.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Zo, zit down on ze armchair couch und tell me all your prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroblemz....




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


We can talk about the ethics of professionals doing such speculating, and I personally find it out of order when they do.

By professional we mean how many plaques on the office wall? Or how about the stereotype TV 'doctor' pitching snake oil remedy in a white smock wearing a stethoscope?



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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...

edit on 1/14/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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.


I agree. Much as I dislike Trump, there's entirely too much "psychological analysis" by people who are saying that they're experts in the field. They should not be diagnosing Trump... or Hillary... or Obama... or Bush... or anyone else.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   

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...


I know you wish that was true.
But it simply isn’t.
At least one of you guys repeating this notion would have provided a source.

However I know you can’t, as the Act applies to patient privacy.

Do you know what a patient is?
Do you understand that Trump is not a patient to anybody but his own doctor(s)?
Is it sinking in that speculation is not a diagnosis at all (official or unofficial)?

You are the 3rd (or 4th) person to say a diagnosis has been announced...
That leaves two options...
1) none of you know the difference between a diagnosis and speculation.
2) you must actually believe Trump is mentally ill, if any diagnosis has truly been announced.

Take your pick.
They’re both equally hilarious.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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.


Actually speculation can be done by anyone.



And because a diagnosis is a confirmation of an illness/condition.


Not necessarily.

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.


Unethical, agreed.


Silencing them for it is just way too despotic for my liking.


Doctors have rules, it's actually in their code of ethics.

But good for you for wanting free speech!


This is different for you!



new topics

top topics



 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join