Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

Thank God for Donald Trump.

Psychiatrists Bandy X. Lee and Leonard L. Glass (“Institutional silence on Trump’s mental state,” Opinion, Feb. 7) correctly point out the physician’s duty “to ensure public health and safety,” and they rightly argue that “either silence or active cooperation with a destructive regime” runs counter to “medicine’s humanitarian goals.” But it is a long leap of logic from these admirable principles to the claim that psychiatrists are justified in labeling a public figure “unstable and dangerous,” in the absence of a thorough clinical and forensic evaluation.

As an American citizen, I share with Drs. Lee and Glass deep concerns regarding the policies, practices, and pronouncements of the current administration. As a psychiatric physician, however, I am bound by professional standards governing what I can say about individuals I have not personally evaluated.

If the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater rule” did not exist, physicians would be morally justified in inventing it. As a forensic colleague and I argued in Psychiatric Times, the rule is not a “gag order” aimed at imposing “absolute silence on its members who would otherwise speak out in the public square,” as Lee and Glass claim. Rather, the rule limits what psychiatrists can justifiably state in their professional capacity as psychiatrists—not what they can say, as concerned citizens, in the public square. To argue that psychiatrists must choose between violating the Goldwater rule and remaining silent in the face of injustice is to pose a classic false choice.

Dr. Ronald W. Pies

Lexington

The writer, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, is a member of the APA. His views here are his own.

Thank you to @MSNBC! pic.twitter.com/VdRnirACAz

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here.

Here.

Nightflight (1981). Incredible.

Here is Kurt Schlichter’s latest column.

The writer of the Feb. 8 letter “Save the Children” writes that although President Donald Trump “may not be a perfect person, he is the savior of these children,” referring to victims of late-term abortions in New York and Virginia.

Without wading into the complex morality of tragic, late-term abortions, which are extremely rare, I’d like to comment on the often-heard description of Mr. Trump as “not perfect.”

Many of the worst leaders in history can easily survive the “not perfect” test. No doubt there are less polemical examples but there were good reasons that God-fearing Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Post 1929 he helped to lift Germany out of a Depression that was even worse than that of the United States. He built much needed infrastructure—dams, railroads and the Autobahn. In connection with the war effort, he can also be credited indirectly for much scientific advancement: the Volkswagen, rocket engines and jet propulsion are three examples. Surely people said in effect, “He’s not perfect, but he’s making Germany great again”.

Back to the here and now: Mr. Trump is responsible for separating thousands of young children from their families at our southern border. I doubt they regard him as their savior and find no solace in him not being perfect.

Henry Wiens

Perry South