Hi Paul,

I've never served on a jury.

And in Trump's case I probably would be disqualified
as well because of my biases.

It's hard to be unbiased in his case.

There's a rule called the Goldwater Rule....

"Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,[1] which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, and when they are asked to comment on public figures, they refrain from diagnosing, which requires a personal examination and consent."

That means that any professional who diagnose someone with some mental problem without having a specific personal examination is acting unethically. So all those who fall for the claimed professional diagnoses of Trump's supposed mental problems are listening to people acting unethically. But if you want it to be true, what have ethics got to do with it, eh?

Meanwhile Biden was specifically found to be so senile and dotty that he couldn't be charged with his crimes due to that senility. I can't help but notice that all those anxious to find mental problems with Trump (did I mention that was unethical?) are trying very hard to ignore Biden's proven mental issues.

BTW, the Goldwater rule is named for a Republican candidate from 1964. Notice that its only Republicans who get this far-off diagnosis. After all, it'd be unethical to do it to Democrats. Right?

Hi mhaze,
"That means that any professional who diagnose someone with some mental problem without having a specific personal examination is acting unethically."

I think your argument is a little flimsy.
I think there are pros and cons.

Let's say you have a highly experienced professional with many years in the game, and he/she watches someone for many hours as for example in the case of Donald Trump we all have...

Let's say that even without meeting Trump this medical professional says 'This man Trump has an absolute textbook case of x, y and z'.

Just because he/she hasn't met Trump doesn't necessarily mean they're AUTOMATICALLY wrong.
They still has a better informed opinion in his/her specialised area than a non-professional, and as a citizen he/she is still entitled to have and share their own personal opinion, right?

Is it 'ethical' to deny them their right to free speech?

I think it might create a mess if mental health professionals weighed in on all our leaders, but could their opinions give us insight, most probably.

Is it 'unethical' for medical professionals to share their opinions with the general public;
or is it 'unethical' for medical professionals to keep their opinions FROM the general public;
- that is, if they think a certain leader has qualities which make them less than suitable for office?

You say it's unethical, on the matter of ethics - I'm undecided.

What if it was a specialists (unmet) opinion on the mental health of Hilary Clinton?
Are you saying we have no right to hear that opinion?
I think we have every right to hear that opinion, as much as a medical professional is also a citizen and he/she has a right to share their opinions, but maybe you could argue that one shouldn't put full weight in an (unmet) assessment.

Ethical or unethical, the real question in any situation is whether or not the particular opinion holds merit?

"I think your argument is a little flimsy."

Flimsy? There is a rule. The rule is determined by American Psychiatric Association's and detailed in their Principles of Medical Ethics. Flimsy?

They made the rule because they determined that it is impossible to diagnose someone without personally examining said patient. Flimsy?

The professionals have examined the issue and come to this conclusion. They only flimsy part is that people with no knowledge of the issue think they know better.

"Is it 'ethical' to deny them their right to free speech?"

They can say whatever they want. But their professional association has determined that its unethical for them to claim special knowledge when they haven't personally examined the person.

As I said, if you want to believe it then you will. But just remember that you are taking the word of someone who is acting contrary to their professional standards. If that sits OK with you, then so be it.

You really need to stop listinging to other peoples crap and use your own mind mhaze.
Like, actually 'think a little bit'

"The rule is determined by American Psychiatric Association's and detailed in their Principles of Medical Ethics."

Is this the same mob who decided it was 'ethical to perform lobotomies and shock therapy' ?

[Rolls eyes]

The 'unethical' part of it is that their 'opinions' have the potential to undermine the fabric of democracy, the ruling class and of our society in general.
- Not that it's necessarily unethical to deprive us of their opinions on a particular individual.

It is however bad business.
If they shared their opinions openly, their patients might not trust them.

There's a valid argument that says all candidates should undergo a mental health assessment by a panel of experts and the details made public to the voters.

Struth. Why is this so hard.

The experts in this field have determined that it isn't possible to diagnose some from afar. It was extensively studied and found to be fraught such that they introduced extensive rules into their ethics documentation to advise practitioners to avoid do it and to advise that when its done the results are invalid.

Yet, because the results marry with what some rolly trooly want to believe, all this goes out the window.

I'm not a fan of deferring to expertise on all issues when that expertise has been found to be wanting. This is not the case. The issue has been studied for decades and the same results apply.

But I'm sure ignorant bystanders know better.

"Is this the same mob who decided it was 'ethical to perform lobotomies and shock therapy' ?"

I'm pretty sure none of them were around at that time. But I'm sure you're an expert on aging as well and will set me straight.

I'm headed off on a weekend drive today. The experts tell me I should drive on the left side of the road, but what do they know. I'm sure driving on the right side will be fine.