Your NPR link has a doctor advocating the elimination of the one on one rule and he also feels that psychiatrists should be able to weigh in when a candidate poses a societal threat that overtakes professional oath.
They may weigh in all they like. Free speech and all that. However, if they don’t insert the proper disclaimers regarding the nature of their commentary, in particular that it is not a diagnosis, you have bit of a mess on your hands.
Example? Trump, for all his flaws, is now president until 2020 at least. He is not removable unless he breaks a law so clearly and obviously that it turns his base against him. Sniping about his mental health from amateurs is easily ignored. If the amateurs, however, are armed with irresponsible “diagnoses” obtained from nothing more than quotes pulled out of speeches and off the cuff remarks, it becomes governmentally problematic.
Oppose him all you like, but do so on a transactional basis. Not some blown up “diagnosis” from a shrink that’s read a few speeches but has never met the man.
The problem is not recognizing “from afar” simply means a lack of necessary information and not necessarily the geographical game. This is why many doctors provide counseling over the phone rather than face to face.
Quite. But there is a rather large difference between “diagnosing from speeches” and “diagnosing over the phone”. The first is deemed irresponsible by the profession as I’ve already shown. The second is not irresponsible; I think it’s problematic, as studies show that 80%+ of communications between individuals can be nonverbal, but I wouldn’t view it as irresponsible.
How did they determine psychiatric diagnoses on dead people if a one on one is required for such a determination?
I’ve previously agreed that a mental health professional can draw inferences from speeches and actions, but not diagnoses. The paper is therefore not able to make any categorical determinations, but only able to suggest a possible interesting correlation.