General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRenowned psychiatrist Robert Lifton to Bill Moyers: 'Trump is the most dangerous man in the world'
INTRODUCTION: There will not be a book published this fall more urgent, important, or controversial than The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, the work of 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health experts to assess President Trumps mental health. They had come together last March at a conference at Yale University to wrestle with two questions. One was on countless minds across the country: Whats wrong with him? The second was directed to their own code of ethics: Does Professional Responsibility Include a Duty to Warn if they conclude the president to be dangerously unfit?As mental health professionals, these men and women respect the long-standing Goldwater rule which inhibits them from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined. At the same time, as explained by Dr. Bandy X Lee, who teaches law and psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine, the rule does not have a countervailing rule that directs what to do when the risk of harm from remaining silent outweighs the damage that could result from speaking about a public figure which in this case, could even be the greatest possible harm. It is an old and difficult moral issue that requires a great exertion of conscience. Their decision: We respect the rule, we deem it subordinate to the single most important principle that guides our professional conduct: that we hold our responsibility to human life and well-being as paramount.
The foreword is by one of Americas leading psychohistorians, Robert Jay Lifton. He is renowned for his studies of people under stress for books such as Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima (1967), Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans Neither Victims nor Executioners (1973), and The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (1986). The Nazi Doctors was the first in-depth study of how medical professionals rationalized their participation in the Holocaust, from the early stages of the Hitlers euthanasia project to extermination camps.
The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump will be published Oct. 3 by St. Martins Press.
Hence, this profound, illuminating and discomforting book undertaken as a duty to warn.
. . .
Moyers: Duty to warn?
Lifton: We have a duty to warn on an individual basis if we are treating someone who may be dangerous to herself or to others a duty to warn people who are in danger from that person. We feel its our duty to warn the country about the danger of this president. If we think we have learned something about Donald Trump and his psychology that is dangerous to the country, yes, we have an obligation to say so. Thats why Judith Herman and I wrote our letter to The New York Times. We argue that Trumps difficult relationship to reality and his inability to respond in an evenhanded way to a crisis renders him unfit to be president, and we asked our elected representative to take steps to remove him from the presidency.
Moyers: Yet some people argue that our political system sets no intellectual or cognitive standards for being president, and therefore, the ordinary norms of your practice as a psychiatrist should stop at the door to the Oval Office.
Lifton: Well, there are people who believe that there should be a standard psychiatric examination for every presidential candidate and for every president. But these are difficult issues because they cant ever be entirely psychiatric. Theyre inevitably political as well. I personally believe that ultimately ridding the country of a dangerous president or one whos unfit is ultimately a political matter, but that psychological professionals can contribute in valuable ways to that decision.
Moyers: Do you recall that there was a comprehensive study of all 37 presidents up to 1974? Half of them reportedly had a diagnosable mental illness, including depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder. Its not normal people who always make it to the White House.
Lifton: Yes, thats amazing, and Im sure its more or less true. So people with what we call mental illness can indeed serve well, and people who have no discernible mental illness and that may be true of Trump may not be able to serve, may be quite unfit. So it isnt always the question of a psychiatric diagnosis. Its really a question of what psychological and other traits render one unfit or dangerous. . . .
http://billmoyers.com/story/dangerous-case-donald-trump-robert-jay-lifton-bill-moyers-duty-warn/
FarPoint
(12,442 posts)To bad the rest of the nation lacks insight and acknowledge this huge defective pResident.
murielm99
(30,763 posts)about cults as well. This Guardian article is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion
If I had a chance to speak to him, I would ask him about charismatic political leaders. I don't mean the type of charisma that people like Obama, Bill Clinton, MLK, JFK or even Reagan possess. I mean the leaders who can't be questioned without their followers swarming and attacking anyone who points out the any flaws in their personality or programs. Those leaders are not confined to the far right. We need to be careful.
On edit, I was asked who decides what is a cult. I was locked out of the thread and not allowed to reply. My reply would include this article. It would also include a reference to the book "The Kingdom of the Cults," which approaches the cult issue from a Christian point of view. I would include articles by Max Weber and Margaret Singer as well.