Name:   phil - Subject:   good question Date:   7/7/2017 12:15:13 PM (updated 7/7/2017 12:16:01 PM)

if you truly are the person you claim to be in terms of a metal health professional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

Please explain how you are in violation of the Goldwater Rule by the APA.  

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,^[1] which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.^[2] It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.^[3][4]

The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater".^[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.^[6][7] The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $579,000 today) in damages.^[3]

Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates. 

When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.^[9]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d-moreno/the-real-story-behind-the_b_11733088.html

 

“The Presidency should not be used as a platform for proving one’s manhood . . .”

“Inwardly he is a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him . . .”

“Since his nomination I find myself increasingly thinking of the early 1930s . . .”

“Unconsciously he seems to want to destroy himself. He has a good start, for he has already destroyed the Republican party . . .”

What sound like remarks that could have been made about Donald Trump were actually written by psychiatrists in response to a survey during the 1964 presidential campaign. This embarrassing incident led to the now-famous Goldwater Rule, which bars psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures long-distance. Yet in this election cycle physicians are commenting on what they regard as one of the candidate’s medical problems without being sanctioned by the American Medical Association.

What explains this difference? For the answer one has to turn to the historical context of the Goldwater Rule.

...

Analyzing a political figure, living or dead, runs the risk of politicizing a whole field. In the Goldwater case, it was no surprise that many if not most psychiatrists turned out to be liberals who were ill-disposed toward Goldwater’s tough rhetoric, but mixing politics with professional expertise was and remains toxic. On pain of inconsistency, the same standard should be applied to all physicians, regardless of their specialization.

 

2nd verse same as the 1st.  rinse repeat.  We get it you dont like Trump and you like to violate your ethics and by huffington post own words you are toxic.