These revealing real-time displays of Donald Trump's antics have apparently persuaded mental health experts to violate their professional associations' codes of ethics and render diagnoses.
Should they be censured for this?
That begs the question, Is the Goldwater Rule obsolete? The rule was invoked more than half a century ago in 1964, when 1,189 psychiatrists who responded to a questionnaire said presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was mentally unfit for the presidency . The American Psychiatric Association was right to invoke the Goldwater Rule. At that time opportunities to observe politicians' behavior were scant. Television coverage of political campaigns was limited, and personal subjects were off limits--or addressed only lightly. The ethics of journalism steered reportage away from the personal lives of candidates. We often didn't learn about their peccadilloes and missteps until years later--or after they were dead. Today's news world is vastly different--everything is fair game and subject to scrutiny with technologies that often erase the line between public and private..
What if a President is mentally unfit?
Because the U.S. Constitution was vague about the rules for succession if the President were to die, resign, be removed, or became disabled, the 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Section 4 of the amendment states that the President can be removed if he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
But absent from this amendment is how to determine "unable" under a variety of circumstances. If the charge were mental illness wouldn't we want the most qualified professionals to participate in that determination? The Goldwater Rule would shackle those experts.
Yes, reevaluation of the Goldwater Rule poses challenges. We certainly don't want to open the floodgates for wholesale diagnosing of people in public life. Parameters, limits, and special situations will have to be designated. Not an easy chore--but one that is essential for enabling the most authoritative voices to weigh in on potentially catastrophic situations like we may now be facing. To hide behind a flawed ethical principle rather than meeting the challenge of today's complex world is unacceptable.
Should there be a national or global disaster due to the president's mental instability--the very instability about which psychiatrists and psychologists have warned--history will not be kind to the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations for silencing their members' assessments.
We may be witnessing one such disaster. In what many Republican and Democratic members of Congress called "terrifying, reckless and deeply disturbing," President Trump released classified intelligence from a foreign ally to the Russians. His rationalization for this possible breach of national security is "I wanted to share with Russia." Is this a sign of the man-child in the White House that David Brooks portrayed in The New York Times on May 16, 2017? Is it an expression of the developmental level of a five year old in kindergarten: "I wanted to share my crayons with Billy who hit me yesterday. Maybe now he will like me."
American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations: What are you waiting for?
To shift gears, why not jointly sponsor a national forum consisting of mental health experts and leaders in other relevant disciplines to debate, explore, and set appropriate procedures and actions that can address unusual circumstances.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
