Knowledge empowers. It reduces fear, as you realize things are not as mysterious as they seem. It gives hope, as you recognize there are solutions. It puts the People in charge, as an enlightened populace cannot easily be fooled. All this strengthens democracy.
Do not give into those who would render the People ignorant so as to rule. Facts, expertise, and knowledge belong to you. Health professionals make a pledge to their patients and to society—not to any powerful public figure, special interest group, or self-interest.
Intellectuals are not “the elite.” There is a reason why they (along with journalists) are the first to be targeted under an authoritarianism regime. The less people are educated, the more they will reject education and worship the actual “elite” (oppressors).
In psychology, this is called, “identification with the oppressor.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When a doctor tells you a large mass is benign, or a small sore is part of metastatic cancer, you feel correspondingly relieved or worried. A doctor’s word has a lot of weight.
If “speak responsibly” were the true goal of “the Goldwater rule,” then it would make a lot of sense. But it was changed nonsensically to suit Donald Trump. t contradicted science. It gagged responsible voices, while elevating irresponsible ones because of the confusion.
How egregious, then, if a psychiatrist not only diagnoses but does so irresponsibly:
Substance Abuse in Donald Trump was eliminated because he “is a teetotaler in reaction to his older brother’s alcoholism.” (Really??) vice.com/en/article/wjj…
How did the APA force us to violate ethics? 1. In a case of danger, we are supposed to act, not stay silent (in ordinary situations, we could be held legally liable for this). 2. If in any doubt, a mandatory examination was warranted (no exceptions).
What medical ethics support this? 1. The AMA Code tells us we cannot choose to walk away from an emergency. The APA Code tells us we have a responsibility to the public. The Declaration of Geneva prohibits assisting dangerous regimes. 2. A president does not have immunity.
Of note: 1. These are actual laws (and the Declaration of Geneva a worldwide pledge), unlike “the Goldwater rule,” which is an “annotation” and not even policy for the small private association that created it. 2. No immunity holds for both mental health law and natural law.
A friend in Boston said recently: “If [Hillary Clinton] had turned to the fat pig and commanded him to ‘back off, you creep,’ she would have won.”
She is right. When Donald Trump got away with it, it imbued his defects with special powers....
Every time he “got away with it,” his powers grew: his fixation over crowd size, his firing of James Comey, his giving away intelligence to Russian spies, and his “my button is bigger than your button… (to cover only some of the first year).
His deficiencies continued to turn into magical powers, to the point where much of the nation literally came to adore a naked emperor.
“To their advantage, [politicians] have designed the political system for them to be the sole decision makers on the laws and on the constitution and, by the way, on whether their mental or physical health condition should allow them to serve in office, or not.” - Dr. J. Chaoulli
“In 1965,... a Representative from Pennsylvania, Curtin, suggested that, under some circumstances, a doctor has to go in and forcefully examine the President, and that a Commission should have the power to compel an examination....
... Whitener, a Representative from North Carolina, challenged Rep. Curtin on what would happen then if a President, as Commander in Chief, would order to put the army in front of the White House and stop any doctor trying to step in....
If we have a system that condones unfitness, recruits for more unfitness, and rewards unfitness in top positions, are we surprised at our societal decline? One characteristic of unfitness is that, once we give it power, it is very difficult to get it back.
I see two solutions to this: 1. Either we prosecute and set limits from the outside; 2. Or we screen and prevent at the outset.
Yes, we should do both and not give up.
(Before my colleague and I wrote our report on Rikers Island, people said reform would be impossible. Our report brought in the federal investigators, and they took our most extreme recommendation: tearing it down.)
I was first invited to testify before Congress in September 2017, which would have been a bombshell, but I believe it was the speaker who did not allow it. Congress members then told me she must be waiting for a majority in the House. When nothing happened after that....
... the public, our allies in Congress, and mental health professionals became discouraged. There was also a Congressional press conference that she canceled right after the Helsinki summit. So I no longer believe it is “if we just had the House, the Senate, the Presidency”....
... Hence, when the second Senate trial was truncated, in spite of the heroic efforts of some House members who defied all odds to get us there, right when we were reaching a place where we had never been before, I felt like I was reliving my own experiences.