freudzcouch
Diagnosing the Ol’ Pussy Grabber

I’ve made quite a bit of hay or is that hey? out of diagnosing the Ol’ Pussy Grabber. Since I am no longer a licensed mental health professional, I am not bound by the Goldwater rule. In brief, during the 1964 presidential campaign, apparently, some people thought Goldwater an unhinged psychopath, and the now-defunct muckraking magazine, Fact, published an article entitled, The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater. According to the NYT article, Ralph Ginsburg, the editor, was a provocateur of sorts out to get Goldwater. He surveyed the approximately 12,000 members of the American Psychiatric Association about Goldwater’s mental health. Only a little over 2,000 responded to the mailed survey, but Ginsburg wrote up his findings anyway.  Half of the respondents opined that Goldwater was mentally unfit to be president describing him variously as a dangerous lunatic (very scientific!), paranoid, and megalomaniacal, grossly psychotic, and diagnosing him as a narcissistic personality disorder (sound familiar?) and schizophrenic. For what’s its worth a little over a quarter judged him to be mentally fit and a little under a quarter weaseled out of it by saying they didn’t know enough about him… how professional of them!

GoldwaterGoldwater lost the election, but won his libel suit against Ginsburg and Fact receiving from $1.00 in compensatory damages and $75,000.00 in punitive damages. This was decided by the Supreme Court, by the way. Also, Goldwater had sued for $2 million. So there’s that.

In response the APA created a rule widely known as the Goldwater rule stating that psychiatrists and psychologists cannot diagnose people they have not personally examined. You know, some people just have to spoil all the fun! But there is some wiggle room! Don’t y’all love a bit of wiggle room? While licensed psychiatrists and psychologists cannot diagnose the Ol’ Pussy Grabber as a narcissistic personality disorder, let’s say, they can say he appears to be a narcissist.

Against this backdrop, we have two sets of psychiatric opinions: one is against violating the Goldwater rule given by Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, psychiatrist extraordinaire, and Chair of the Colombia University Department of Psychiatry in The Hill, and the other for given by Yale Medical School professor of psychiatry, Brandy Lee, and other participants at an open town-hall-style meeting addressing the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s mental health status. Strangely, they both agree on one point: there needs to be a protocol concerning evaluating a president’s mental health and removing her from office vis-a-vis the 25th amendment.

How Much Should the Public Know

Lieberman essentially says that it is unethical to offer a diagnosis of a person that you have not been able to examine personally, but, given the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s behavior, it is easy to understand why people have questions. To get around this sticky wicket, he suggests that we discuss two other questions: how much does the public have a right to know about the president’s mental health and what are the circumstances that the president can be removed from office due to the inability to discharge her duties. Given the awesome power of the office, it stands to reason, he concludes, that the greater good outweighs any right to privacy the office holder might lay claim to.

He concludes by stating that it is high time that we made a standard medical review including mental health be a thing that any would-be president must submit to. It ain’t earth shattering, I admit, given our current circumstances, but it does avoid the ethical quagmire of offering diagnoses based on public records.

It ain’t likely to become a requirement anytime soon, unless, of course, the Dems get a veto proof Congressional majority in 2018. We can only hope.

Duty to Warn

Lee’s point-of-view is grounded in the Duty to Warn criteria used in about 40 states: if a person is a threat to others, then the treating physician has the state’s official okey-dokey to warn the that other or alert the authorities. Again, given the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s alarming behavior, it is understandable that various mental health professionals are alarmed and concerned.

There have been several iterations of this public warning.

  • Dr. Judith Herman the Harvard and Cambridge trained psychiatrist was so alarmed by the Ol’ Pussy Grabber, she wrote a letter to President Obama wondering if there were any way of preventing him from becoming president based on his mental instability. The letter has gone viral and was read at the Women’s March.
  • Dr. John Gartner, psychologists, and formerly of the John Hopkins School of Medicine has also been very vocal in his concerns for the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s mental health, reasoning that he doesn’t have to have the Ol’ Pussy Grabber lie to him personally to realize that he lies frequently and habitually. After all, his numerous lies have been well documented in the public record.
  • For his part, Dr. James Gilligan of the NYU medical school famously opined, When you add all of these elements… this is the class of people of whom Hitler is a member. He was referring to the Ol’ Pussy Grabber’s well known need for extravagant flattery, need for extreme revenge, occasional sadism, lack of remorse, and tendency to exploit and violate the rights of others. He has concluded that the Ol’ Pussy Grabber is a danger to others even without an official diagnosis.
  • Dr. Robert Jay Lifton former professor of psychiatry at Yale University offers the concept of malignant normality or arrangements put forward as being normal when in fact they are dangerous and destructive. Apparently, Lifton is an expert on the co-optation of doctors in the Holocaust, and basis his interpretation of the Ol’ Pussy Grabber on that. Now, no one is saying the Ol’ Pussy Grabber is a Nazi, he just shares some prominent traits with them in the opinion of these gentlemen. He goes on to observe that the Ol’ Pussy Grabber is behaving very authoritarianly, if you’ll accept the term, and is trying to break down our public institutions so they cannot be used to prevent him from enacting his policies.

I have read from various in formal sources that there are wimperings among Congress-types about removing the Ol’ Pussy Grabber. It is clear that he is dangerous. It is also clear that he has the unwavering support of at least some substantial minority of the population (25%? 35%?). Given all of the outrageous things the Ol’ Pussy Grabber has done, what would it take to push his cabinet or Congress over the edge and have him removed? What could push the Ol’ Pussy Grabber to committing even more outrageous acts than he already has? Should we even wait that long?