Libel is a form of defamation of character - a harsh and untrue vilification of another. Many politicians and others today accuse one another of libel. To better understand libel, I have been examining a legal case concerning the issue - one that that involved the mental health community and presidential politics, and that went to the US Supreme Court.
In that case, Goldwater v. Ginzburg, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater sued the publisher of Fact magazine who had, during Senator Goldwater's run for the US Presidency, conducted a psychiatric assessment of his character.
More recently, I have been focusing on a poll of psychiatrists conducted by Fact that asked psychiatrists whether Mr. Goldwater was mentally healthy enough to be president. The psychiatrists responded with a number of harsh comments, which Fact's publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, went ahead and published (see here).
There was also considerable wisdom in some responses to the poll. These, too, merit consideration. Some involved judgments by psychiatrists of themselves and their colleauges. As one put it:
"If most psychiatrists do not prefer Goldwater, it is certainly no surprise. Psychiatrists have a strong tendency to be "do-gooders"...Since I am a practicing psychiatrist I feel free to criticize my profession. Among MD's, we are the most psychologically disturbed of the group. That is what motivates us to be interested in other people's problems."
The question of whether psychiatrists are any more or less psychologically disturbed than others (or were in 1964) is an empirical one beyond the scope of this post. One of my ongoing points in these posts is that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, along with the rest of humanity, are often judgmental. The Fact survey, which mixed psychiatry and politics with little guidance to the respondents, encouraged strong judgments.
In addition to commenting on Senator Goldwater or their colleagues, some psychiatrists raised important points regarding observing others.
One example concerned the following letter from a psychiatrist who pointed out the importance of context:
"...It is an axiom that persons who make exaggerated statements (remarks) become very moderate when they have to assume the responsibility of their decisions and performances."
"Mr. Goldwater would probably be no exception to this rule."
Another line of argument was to acknowledge the then-Senator's alleged mental health issues but note that many people get on successfully with their lives even with such challenges.
"...If Mr. Goldwater is selected it will simply mean that those of us who are really struggling with the human predicament-I know a number of them, and there must be a good many millions more-will simply have to work a little harder. And there is no catastrophe in that, only joy, and discovery."
"I know that not all of my colleagues are going to see the meaning of your inquiry [i.e., "is Goldwater fit...?"] as I do and that some of them will respond to it at face value, exactly as you ask. But their doing so will seem to me shortsighted and utterly wrong, and I am writing you this letter so that you may have at least one statement of a valid opposing viewpoint."
Several letter-writers echoed this point citing specific examples of presidents who succeeded in spite of - or because of - their own psychological difficulties. Psychiatrists wrote in from Colorado Springs, Colorado, Wilsonville, Oregon, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota to point out that President Abraham Lincoln had suffered from psychiatric issues, and what a tragedy it would be if Lincoln had been prevented from becoming president as a consequence. This raises the issue that not any psychiatric illness ought to disqualify a president, perhaps only some more specific constellations of problems - if any should at all.
Another example includes a psychiatrist who made the point, implicitly, that analyzing someone in isolation makes less sense than a fairer and more reasonable approach of comparing someone to his or her peers:
"Goldwater shows more stability than [then-president] Johnson..."
Another psychiatrist wrote in to raise the issue of whether it was better to first gain someone's permission before proceeding to analyze them. I'll close this week's post with this letter. The writer replied to the editors:
"If you will send me written authorization from Senator Goldwater and arrange for an appointment, I shall be happy to send you a report concerning his mental status."
"The same goes for you."
Notes
"If most psychiatrists do not prefer Goldwater..." (p. 29); "...It is an axiom that persons" (p. 34); "...If Mr. Goldwater is selected it will simply mean that those of us who are really struggling with the human predicament...: (p. 48); Psychiatrists wrote in from Colorado Springs, Colorado, Wilsonville, Oregon, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota... (pp. 52-53); "Goldwater shows more stability..." (p. 37); "If you will send me written authorization..." (p. 50)all from: Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64.
Copyright (c) 2009 John D. Mayer
