The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by Bandy X. Lee, Craig Malkin

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President by Bandy X. Lee, Craig Malkin
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a collection of 27 essays by mostly experts in psychiatric medicine. I was surprised and interested that many of the essays examined a different angle.

First, the authors discuss the ethics of this book. The author-psychiatrists have not personally met Donald Trump to diagnose him, so the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person. They note that they disagree with association rule where public safety is at great risk as they believe it is, that members of the APA did not vote on the rule, that if they had met with him as a client they would be forbidden to give a public opinion based on confidentiality, that no other profession is barred from expressing an opinion regarding the mental health of the president except the people who are actually experts on mental health.

Also, they briefly mentioned the Tarasoff Rule, which is a legal standard in American. I'll quote in its entirety here: "When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession, should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."

The essays present different points of view regarding the president's mental health both as a general idea that Democracy needs to address, and as it specifically relates to Donald Trump. Despite the different angles of the essays a few themes emerge.

1) Donald Trump is likely mentally ill in that his behavior is not beneficial to himself, is harmful to individuals he attacks- which he does frequently, and is harmful to the country generally. In addition to the harm that he has already caused, he might present additional dangers to the country and world.

2) Whether or not he is mentally ill, the more important question is whether he is dangerous, which he definitely is according to his own statements and actions. No psychiatric expertise necessary to understand this point.

As an aside, I often read reviews that disagree with my views in order to find points which I should concede. In this case, the one-star and two-star reviews make no sense to me and seem to be more emotional than logical.

View all my reviews