Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Despite the title, this isn't really a medical book. Its a bunch of people cashing in on Trump. 27 medical professionals got together and wrote a series of disjoint essays vaguely about Trump, packaged it up into a book and will probably make a whole lot of money for themselves. One of the main authors themselves admits right at the start that "the main point of this book is not about Mr. Trump" (p. 19). This is followed by the rather breathtaking claim that American Society as a whole is mentally ill by reason of Trump's election and that will be the subject of the book. And in spite of the book being presented as a book by medical professionals, the epilogue is co-written by Noam Chomsky. There are maybe eight essays directly on Trump's mental health. The rest of the book is about relaxing medical ethics and the supposed impact that Trump is having on the mental health of the country. Many of the voices in this book want to roll back patient protections as well as shift the burden of proof to the accused in mental health settings. They are in fact calling for dramatic changes in the name of the supposed "Trump Crisis" that will roll back professional standards in mental health to what they were in the 1950s. You can tell alot about a polemic by how fast and how often it plays the Hitler card. The Hitler card is played an average on one of every 19 pages. As far as the first to drop it, .Robert Jay Lifton drops it in the Foreword. He explains how Americans are just like the Nazi Doctors in the death camps. That to accept Trump as President is just like working in a death camp. After making the point, without explanation, he immediately says he is not making the point he just made. He then goes on to develop a concept he calls the "witnessing professional activist". What it effectively means is that the highest standard of professional ethics should be a *political* standard rather than a technical standard. Its badly written and argued, but it effectively sets the stage for the book. This is about mental health or a diagnosis or any technical medical issue. This is just a bunch of professionals using their credentials to politically vent. And if you don't agree with them.....well you are in their opinion no different than a nazi collaborator. In the prologue, three of the authors attempt to explain their views of professional ethics. They invent a new standard for ethics where obligations to a patient (or individual) should always be weighted against an equal set of obligations "to society". They go so far as to say that even doctor-professional confidentially is something that should be weighed against what a professional owes to society. Their thinking is thin and anti-intellectual that they don't bother to think through the broader implications of that. Extended beyond Trump, the idea that professionals first duty is to the community rather than the individual is an astonishing thing to assert. They also describe a concept called an "assessing diagnosis". Its not actually new in this case. Its a throwback to how involuntary commitment was done before the 1970s. Its based on the idea that a doctor knows "crazy" when they see it and that its better to err on the side of taking immediate action to preserve "public safety" than to waste time trying to prove that someone is dangerous. Again, they don't look at the general implications of the standards they are setting. If they talk about anything at all to justify themselves, its death camps, GITMO, torture or the CIA. Softball examples to gloss over the impact of pushing the ethnics of their profession back to the bad old days of the 1950s. As well, the assert that the test for the ethics should be based on the end pursued. Basically if they are working for the government, the highest possible standard of ethics should apply. But if they are "resisting" the state, basically anything goes. . In part (1) of the book, nine sets of authors offer nine completely different diagnosis of Trump's mental health issues. One of Trump's ghostwriters with a degree in American Studies is invited to provide a diagnosis which says alot about how the serious the book is. The problem with the section is that the claims by the various professionals are are all over the map. The lack of any common conclusions through diagnosis points to the problem of employing these methods: That there is effectively no method and no professionalism in the evaluation. The second part of the book consists of six sections that attempt to make the case the remote professional mental health diagnosis of public figures is justified by a duty to the community that overrides any ethical obligation to a patient or client. Some raise a standard of "dangerousness". But (again) there is no thought given to the broader implications of what they are suggesting. They are essentially suggesting that the importance of a person in society (police officers, politicians, pilots, firefighters) should increase the ability of random mental health professionals to intervene in their lives. And what of the claim that obligation to patient and community are equal? Again, as is in so much of the book, the content is non-intellectual and simply focused on establishing a reason to justify actions toward Trump. The final part of the book is a series of poorly written pieces that reach out from Trump to the whole of society. Thus we get something on the birther movement, we get a claim that the whole country is an "abusive" relationship with Trump, we get claims that Trump as president is getting in the way of people's "healing" and creating mental illness. We end with a crackpot *legal* interpretation of the 25th amendment by doctors. The weakness of the book is that its very much on the defensive and that there is no professional consensus offered on Trump. It demands to make sweeping and dangerous changes to professional ethics based entirely on one man becoming president. Trump will last only a few years as President. But making professional obligations to the community equal to those of the client would be something we would be stuck with forever. If the profession accepts the concept of "assessing diagnosis" applied to Trump, what is to stop that concept from being extended to the homeless and the poor? I really don't think the authors care. I don't see anything in the book other than a set of people taking an opportunity to make a fast buck off Trump being president. Its so badly argued and so badly written that it will hurt rather than help their cause.