Donald Trump might be a breathing, walking entry in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for narcissism, but that doesn't mean psychiatric professionals should be pointing that out if they haven't ever treated him, says the American Psychiatric Association, adding a whole new dimension of surreal to 2016.
"The unique atmosphere of this year's election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates," Maria A. Oquendo, president of the APA, wrote, "but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible."
This problem has actually come up before, in 1964, when "a whole bunch of psychiatrists decided they would like to psychoanalyze Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater." It became such a problem that the APA had to create the "Goldwater Rule." A magazine that year surveyed more than 12,000 psychiatrists about the Republican contender, and reported back with the headline "FACT: 1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President." That led to a libel suit, which Goldwater won. Oquendo writes this year that this "large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry." So knock it off now, she says.
Let’s hope this isn’t the only similarity between the Republican standard bearers in 1964 and 2016. We could use that kind of landslide again.