Robert Klitzman tackles an enduring issue in the coverage of political campaigns in an op-ed in today's New York Times. He asks, "Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?" His piece opened,
Not long ago, a journalist asked me what I thought, as a psychiatrist, of Donald J. Trump.
Many psychologists have been quick to offer diagnoses, calling him and other presidential candidates “narcissists,” and even providing thoughts about possible treatments.
I wondered what, if anything, to say. I’ve watched Mr. Trump on TV like everyone else, but never met him. So, I hesitated — for ethical reasons. The American Psychiatric Association (A.P.A.) prohibits its members from giving professional opinions about public figures we have not interviewed.
Klitzman provides the historical context for the APA position, going back to a magazine's survey of psychiatrists on the topic of Republic candidate Barry Goldwater during the 1964 campaign. Described in highly negative terms, Goldwater sued and one for libel. Klitzman tracks the history of the APA's "Goldwater Rule" and differing views on how broadly it applies to therapists beyond psychiatrists. Circling back to the inital query from the journalists, Klitzman notes,
To the journalist who contacted me, I thus explained the Goldwater Rule, and that I had not examined Mr. Trump, so could not say anything specific about him, but that, in general, egoism unfortunately motivates many presidential candidates. I said I hoped that would not impede them from acting in the public’s best interests — but that it was a danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment