Introduction. An ethical dilemma; 1. Psychoanalysis, media, and politics from the rise of Hitler to the 1950s; Part I. Diagnosis from a Distance and Libel Law in the 1960s: Goldwater v. Ginzburg: 2. Ralph Ginzburg: provocateur; 3. 'To remove this precedent': Barry Goldwater sues for libel; 4. Ginzburg, Goldwater, and the Supreme Court; Part II. Professionalization and the Rise of the Goldwater Rule; 5. 'To protect public figures': the APA and the Goldwater Rule; 6. The CIA and the White House: adventures in assessment; 7. Furor: the debate over Donald Trump; Conclusion. On history, ethics, and pluralism; Appendix. The Goldwater Rule in 1973 and today; Acknowledgments; Notes; Works cited; Index.
Is it ethical for psychiatrists to call a president a narcissist? From Goldwater to Trump, Martin-Joy reviews the debate.
John Martin-Joy, M.D., is a psychiatrist in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a part-time lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts.
'Psychiatrists are often asked in casual conversation for a
diagnosis without a personal examination. Using many primary
sources rarely discussed in previous surveys, John Martin-Joy
provides a detailed and far-reaching analysis of the implications
of such a scenario. Fascinating, thought-provoking, and highly
recommended.' Thomas G. Gutheil, Harvard University
'With compelling prose, page-turning narrative, and sophisticated
analysis, John Martin-Joy uses a little-known, but important, libel
case to discuss an issue of great political significance: the
ethical, professional, social, and legal ramifications of
psychiatrists commenting publicly on the mental health of public
figures.' Samantha Barbas, University of Buffalo
'What do Adolf Hitler, Barry Goldwater, Saddam Hussein, and Donald
Trump have in common? John Martin-Joy shows how psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts had strong views about these men's mental health and
very different opinions about whether they could share these views.
Part media history and part ethical study, this book may change how
you think about professionalism, politics, and the First
Amendment.' James T. Hamilton, Hearst Professor of Communication,
Chair of the Department of Communication, and Director of the
Journalism Program, Stanford University
'With extraordinary historical detail and a remarkable sensitivity
to rational, moral disagreement, this volume is now the book of
record for understanding the ethical implications of the Goldwater
Rule. Policymakers, clinicians, scholars, and concerned citizens
interested in the nexus of politics and psychiatry - especially
during our current, perilous moment - must read this book.' Dominic
A. Sisti, Director, The Scattergood Program for Applied Ethics of
Behavioral Health Care, University of Pennsylvania
'John Martin-Joy is a meticulous researcher and writer, making his
book a pleasure to read. Mixing the disciplines of law, psychiatry,
and history, the book describes the impact of the 'Goldwater Rule'
with the detail and analytic precision that no scholar has provided
before. This book is sure to be regarded as a classic in the years
ahead.' Lawrence J. Friedman, Professor of History Emeritus,
Harvard University and Indiana University
'… historically detailed and well referenced … legally and
philosophically sophisticated …' Allen R. Dyer, Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association
'Diagnosing from a Distance is a wonderful read that CL
psychiatrists could be easily swept up in. The book speaks to the
intellectually curious detective that resides inside each of us.'
Flannery Merideth, Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison
Psychiatry
'Martin-Joy's study rightly focuses on the dialectics animating the
recent of history of the helping professions…This book focuses on
how psychiatric knowledge travels through mass media and the legal
system and how these encounters transformed psychiatric ethics.'
Michael Pettit, American Historical Review
Ask a Question About this Product More... |