Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Fascinating and informative collection of essays. It’s interesting to read professionals’ opinion of what even a layperson can see. But what I found most interesting is the ongoing debate about a professional’s duty to warn versus the widely accepted “Goldwater rule” that one should not comment on the mental health of anyone they have not directly interviewed. The case is made that this longstanding belief should be changed. Trump is simply used as an example. I thought the submission by a technically non-mental-health-professional, the attorney who works with determining whether individuals such as senior citizens are non copos mentis and cannot manage their affairs, made a particularly strong case. What this book proves to me, more than anything, is that we need to have our presidential candidates and presidents under non-partisan or bi-partisan stringent physical *and* mental health review. We currently don’t even hold candidates accountable to provide accurate, reliable medical histories and a certification that they are in good enough health to do the job. Psychiatry is not an exact science, no, but that doesn’t mean it has no bearing on determining not just the ability of a POTUto handle the stress of the job, but to behave in a way that won’t undermine the office or the country’s role on the world stage. An unstable POTUS means an unstable country, and we cannot have that. So, this book has taught me to regret that we don’t have greater medical and psychiatric oversight regarding the individual put in the most powerful role in the United States of America. The military has psychiatric oversight over their individual members. Why not the civilian in charge? The person who has the power over our nuclear arsenal needs to be deemed able to make that call rationally and not emotionally. Only a continued psychiatric observation can determine whether an individual is of sound mind. I’m not even talking about Trump. He’s just the example that makes the need clear. Each contributor has pointed out numerous seriously troubling signs that Trump is not of sound mind OR body, and not capable of doing the job. The outrageous letter reportedly written by his doctor sounds like Trump wrote it himself, and didn’t even use proper medical terminology. How did anyone think that was acceptable? I’m sshocked that that’s all that’s required. A team of physicians employed by the government, not by the individual, should examine the candidate, the President-Elect, and the President, as well as the Vice-President, annually. I find it shocking we don’t do that. And this book has convinced me we need psychological examinations as well. I mean, even a perfectly healthy man or woman would find the job extremely stressful. They would probably benefit from some psychiatric care just as a given. And at the advanced age of most elected to the office, there should be careful monitoring for signs of age-related issues. Trump may very well have some early signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s, as some in this book have sugggested. But even if he doesn’t, I’m convinced, by the contributors to this book, and by my own witness, that the man is a classic Malignant Narcissist. All politicians have to be narcissistic to some degree. But Trump is at a severe level that absolutely negatively affects his ability to govern. His impulsive behavior and thin skin exacerbate the problem. But again, Trump is just an example. The greater issues pondered here in these essays, about the psychiatric community and about the impact of the mental health and personality of He President, or anyone in a position of power, should be discussed, and discussed NOW. Trump is a symptom, and there’s definitely something wrong with the way we currently operate regarding our leaders’ physical and mental health. I’ thnink a complete psychological work-up, like those ordered by judges for some criminal defendants, would be where I’d START. Not because I’m saying Trumps a criminal; that’s off-topic. But because I think ANYONE in his role should undergo one. And I think the men and women who contributed to this book would likely agree. But the question we must then ponder is: what do we do after that? ’