[Mark17]

The book, edited by Lee, asserts that psychiatrists have an ethical responsibility to publicly disclose their evaluations of a dangerous sitting president.

I don’t think there are exceptions to HIPPA Law violations, so I am sure the rats 🐀 will violate it.

[pepsionice]

Back in the late 1960s, there was a ethical standard written up for psychologists, which says you can’t pronounce some judgement over someone, unless you personally sat down and evaluated the person (meaning they were your patient). Since no one has been given this judgement or ability, I don’t see how these mental health experts can make a judgement without having personally seen the patient. Using this type of open-range judgement....even I (a non-mental health expert) could pronounce Pelosi or AOC as ‘nutcases’, and ask them have them removed from their House jobs.

This just seems to me to be an open door where people can send in the name of the doctor doing this to his state accreditation folks, and ask to have his/her license revoked.

[Shady]

It only works when the suppression of info favors the Demos and the Deepers.

[Ranxerox]

The book, edited by Lee, asserts that psychiatrists have an ethical responsibility to publicly disclose their evaluations of a dangerous sitting president.

I don’t think there are exceptions to HIPPA Law violations, so I am sure the rats 🐀 will violate it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would hope that a psychiatrist with just a smidgen of integrity would refuse to offer an opinion on someone they've never even interviewed.