White House doctor: Trump in 'excellent health'

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

The article simply said that elevated LDLs raise the risk that Prez Trump could suffer a heart attack while in office, and eating fast food while traveling on Air Force One doesn't help anyone's cholesterol.

According to the American Diabetes Association, the primary goal is an LDL cholesterol of less than 100 mg/dl. When my LDL went over 100, the VA put me on a statin -- and I am under 165 lbs. and a decade younger than Trump.

He is on the low end of the spectrum and is not a candidate for a heart attack. The liberal media is trying hard to spin this to be worse than it really is. 

[ayin jade]

Just now, ayin jade said:

She violated those standards of practice too. Forensic psychiatry evaluates people for fitness to stand in court for criminal cases, for adoption and custody hearings and other court cases. Forensic psychiatrists evaluate the patient based on physical evidence and examination. She has not done any of that. She is going outside her practice and making accusations (what she calls an assessment) without following the standards of practice in her field. 

A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments.

 

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Ethics Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry

Adopted May, 2005

 

Respect for the individual's right of privacy and the maintenance of confidentiality should be major concerns when performing forensic evaluations. Psychiatrists should maintain confidentiality to the extent possible, given the legal context. Special attention should be paid to the evaluee’s understanding of medical confidentiality. A forensic evaluation requires notice to the evaluee and to collateral sources of reasonably anticipated limitations on confidentiality. Information or reports derived from a forensic evaluation are subject to the rules of confidentiality that apply to the particular evaluation, and any disclosure should be restricted accordingly.

At the outset of a face-to-face evaluation, notice should be given to the evaluee of the nature and purpose of the evaluation and the limits of its confidentiality. The informed consent of the person undergoing the forensic evaluation should be obtained when necessary and feasible. If the evaluee is not competent to give consent, the evaluator should follow the appropriate laws of the jurisdiction.

When psychiatrists function as experts within the legal process, they should adhere to the principle of honesty and should strive for objectivity. Although they may be retained by one party to a civil or criminal matter, psychiatrists should adhere to these principles when conducting evaluations, applying clinical data to legal criteria, and expressing opinions.

Expertise in the practice of forensic psychiatry should be claimed only in areas of actual knowledge, skills, training, and experience.

http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm

 

An additional article regarding forensic psychiatry.

Forensic psychiatric assessment involves a comprehensive psychiatric history including details of the event leading to request for current assessment. 

Assessments should specifically include forensic history, if any; family details like socioeconomic status, history of psychiatric illness, substance abuse, or a criminal record in the family; personal history; mental status examination, and personality assessment. Minor modifications in the assessment format may be required depending on the kind of request.

Hospitalization may be required if the person needs to be observed over a period, before a definite opinion can be given about the diagnosis. If hospitalization is not indicated or is not feasible due to lack of a suitable facility, repeated assessments over a period should be conducted.

Physical investigations should be ordered depending on the case. Psychological testing for personality profile, intelligence, cognitive functions and differential diagnosis may also be required.

Preparing a report for the court is the final step after a detailed assessment. The report should mainly address the questions asked by the court. It should be brief, and use simple and clear language without any scientific jargon. Sources of information like old clinical records, if available or family members or other informants, need to be mentioned. Dates and nature of assessments like clinical examination, inpatient observation and investigations including psychological assessment should be mentioned. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890920/

So what does all this mean? 

She violated the practice standards of her own specialty. 

1) She did not get informed consent.

2) She did not evaluate him in person. 

3) She did not respect confidentiality by writing a book on her assessment.

4) She did not avoid any bias in doing this. 

5) She did not do a comprehensive examination but only did it based on public tweets and media video.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Davida said:

This picture is not a gotcha moment-it is old news. Trump said long ago he was familiar with the swamp because he had been a Dem in the past & that the Clintons courted the billionaire for donations & that he gave donations -so big deal. Many politicians & celebrities tried to cultivate him because of his billionaire status.

Trump has pretty much invalidated anti-Trumpers' arguments.   They are still relying on the stuff they were saying last January and February.   A year has has passed and Trump has defied his critics over and over and over.  

All they have is the same warmed over  invalidated stew from last year.  That's why that picture keeps cropping up.  They have no new material.  

[ayin jade]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

He is on the low end of the spectrum and is not a candidate for a heart attack. The liberal media is trying hard to spin this to be worse than it really is. 

Obamas ldl was over 100 (125) AND he is a smoker. So he is at greater risk of a heart attack than trump. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

Obamas ldl was over 100 (125) AND he is a smoker. So he is at greater risk of a heart attack than trump. 

Yes, but it's "racist" to point that out, and how dare you?

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, Steve_S said:

Congress is not bound by the ethical guidelines of the psychiatric profession. Psychiatrists are....

Forensic psychiatrists aren't.

And if the highest branches of government can't be bound by what you claim are ethical guidelines, then who can?

[OldSchool2]

28 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

...

An additional article regarding forensic psychiatry.

Forensic psychiatric assessment involves a comprehensive psychiatric history including details of the event leading to request for current assessment. 

Assessments should specifically include forensic history, if any; family details like socioeconomic status, history of psychiatric illness, substance abuse, or a criminal record in the family; personal history; mental status examination, and personality assessment. Minor modifications in the assessment format may be required depending on the kind of request.

Hospitalization may be required if the person needs to be observed over a period, before a definite opinion can be given about the diagnosis. If hospitalization is not indicated or is not feasible due to lack of a suitable facility, repeated assessments over a period should be conducted.

Physical investigations should be ordered depending on the case. Psychological testing for personality profile, intelligence, cognitive functions and differential diagnosis may also be required.

Preparing a report for the court is the final step after a detailed assessment. The report should mainly address the questions asked by the court. It should be brief, and use simple and clear language without any scientific jargon. Sources of information like old clinical records, if available or family members or other informants, need to be mentioned. Dates and nature of assessments like clinical examination, inpatient observation and investigations including psychological assessment should be mentioned. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890920/

Read the fine print, e.g., "may" doesn't carry the same meaning as must.

[OldSchool2]

33 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

He is on the low end of the spectrum and is not a candidate for a heart attack....

If being overweight, not exercising, not sleeping well while eating fast food doesn't make one a candidate for an MI, then nothing does.

[Steve_S]

48 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Forensic psychiatrists aren't.

And if the highest branches of government can't be bound by what you claim are ethical guidelines, then who can?

They are bound by the ethical guidelines of their profession. Why would congress be bound by the ethical guidelines of the profession of psychiatry? Are they bound by the ethical guidelines of a welder's union or major league baseball lol? Forensic psychiatrists are bound by the ethical standards of the profession of psychiatry and by a further set of ethical guidelines that is unique to the subspecialty of forensic psychiatry, which jade delineates in a later post.

[Steve_S]

38 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Assessments should specifically include forensic history, if any; family details like socioeconomic status, history of psychiatric illness, substance abuse, or a criminal record in the family; personal history; mental status examination, and personality assessment. Minor modifications in the assessment format may be required depending on the kind of request.

You left out the underlined part, which includes mental status examination. It should specifically include... mental status examination, family history, personal history... none of which she has access to in any detail.