as the news media spew out fragments of medical facts on public figures, the temptation for reporters, pundits and sometimes even physicians is to draw negative conclusions and make pseudo-psychiatric diagnoses. these observations are built upon and speculated upon until all reality is lost. he is a narcissistic sociopath. she is a pathological liar. both of them lack empathy. such assessments are so common in this election season that you would think the two candidates were as familiar to you as your own uncle or aunt. but the truth is, we don<u+2019>t actually know them except through the fog of the media lens. it is unfair to draw conclusions or even to make impressions about public figures we don<u+2019>t know, and yet we do it. since 1973, in the wake of damaging speculation published in a survey of psychiatrists about the mental fitness of 1964 republican presidential candidate sen. barry goldwater, the american psychiatric association has abided by a principle known as the goldwater rule, published in its <u+201c>principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry.<u+201d> the goldwater rule states that <u+201c>it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.<u+201d> in august, as the presidential election campaign was heating up, the president of the american psychiatric association, maria a. oquendo, published a warning that psychiatrists resist any temptation to psychoanalyze these candidates. <u+201c>simply put,<u+201d> she wrote, <u+201c>breaking the goldwater rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.<u+201d> the question now is whether recent news items regarding donald trump allegedly kissing and groping women years ago without their permission and hillary clinton writing or receiving diminishing or mocking emails about groups of people somehow creates an exception to the goldwater rule. i don<u+2019>t think it does, because we are still dealing with news items rather than with medical records or direct examination. but i would add that, as the goldwater rule allows, <u+201c>in such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general.<u+201d> this profoundly unsettling and destructive election may still serve as a teaching tool about how we ought to behave as a society and as individuals. evidently, we still have to learn how to treat each other with respect, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. we need to regain the ability to accept opposing points of view instead of vilifying anyone who doesn<u+2019>t agree with us. definitely no invasions of personal space without permission. no mocking of women in any way<u+2014>if nothing else, let<u+2019>s remember they are the people who gave birth to all of us. also, apologies are fine, but how about no lying or making fun of each other or talking one way in public and another in private. at the end of the second debate, after 90 minutes of vitriol, the candidates were asked to say something positive about each other. mrs. clinton praised mr. trump<u+2019>s children, generally a testament to successful parenting. mr. trump replied that his opponent was tough, a fighter, someone who doesn<u+2019>t give up. he admired that, he said. these affirmative statements were steps toward a more civil political discourse. dr. siegel is a professor at new york university langone medical center and a fox news medical correspondent.
narcissism can<u+2019>t be diagnosed through a camera lens - wsj
noauthor