Comments (2) on “Request for Emergency Medical and Constitutional Review of Presidential Fitness”
Dr. Bandy X Lee one of the authors of Duty to Warn said this:
Bandy Lee: We have responsibilities to our patients and a separate responsibility to society. The 25th Amendment is a political process, but it does not mean the decision to employ it has to be made in an uninformed way. Experts like me make ourselves available for consultation, education, and recommendations. In fact, it’s in our ethical guidelines that we contribute to public service by consulting with the three branches of the federal government. Just as a legal decision on disability, incompetence, or unfitness would be almost inconceivable to make without medical consultation, a political decision is better made with appropriate expert input. I’m here to educate on that importance and what mental-health professionals can offer, because politicians may not be aware of exactly what could be consulted on and what we could be available for.
Mental-health issues are very familiar to us, but interventions at a national scale are not. Politicians, who have the power to intervene at a national scale, by contrast do not know much about mental health. When doctors issue a warning or take steps to protect public health, we’re actually responding to our professional responsibility to society—and here that can mean calling on Congress or the Cabinet, who have the power to act. So I do believe that doctors have a role—and it is not a role that we can abandon—to address our concerns when they get to the point of affecting public well-being and public health and to meet a constitutionally designated responsibility. A public figure is not our patient, and we don’t approach the situation as we would a patient but rather as our responsibility to society.
Me: Please do your duty to society and take action.
Dr. Bandy X Lee one of the authors of Duty to Warn said this:
Bandy Lee: We have responsibilities to our patients and a separate responsibility to society. The 25th Amendment is a political process, but it does not mean the decision to employ it has to be made in an uninformed way. Experts like me make ourselves available for consultation, education, and recommendations. In fact, it’s in our ethical guidelines that we contribute to public service by consulting with the three branches of the federal government. Just as a legal decision on disability, incompetence, or unfitness would be almost inconceivable to make without medical consultation, a political decision is better made with appropriate expert input. I’m here to educate on that importance and what mental-health professionals can offer, because politicians may not be aware of exactly what could be consulted on and what we could be available for.
Mental-health issues are very familiar to us, but interventions at a national scale are not. Politicians, who have the power to intervene at a national scale, by contrast do not know much about mental health. When doctors issue a warning or take steps to protect public health, we’re actually responding to our professional responsibility to society—and here that can mean calling on Congress or the Cabinet, who have the power to act. So I do believe that doctors have a role—and it is not a role that we can abandon—to address our concerns when they get to the point of affecting public well-being and public health and to meet a constitutionally designated responsibility. A public figure is not our patient, and we don’t approach the situation as we would a patient but rather as our responsibility to society.
Me: Please do your duty to society and take action.
TY!