Mental health professional responds to criticism of Trump diagnosis


Letter to the Editor

To the editor:

This is in response to Howard Sloan’s and Mark Milward’s criticisms of two mental health publications called “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” and “A Duty to Warn.”

As far as Mr. Sloan is concerned, I will let his ramblings speak for themselves.

Mr. Milward accuses the publications of being politically motivated and the mental health professionals of being unethical due to never having met Mr. Trump.

In response, I would have to say: Mr. Milward would have us believe by his logic that if you personally witnessed a head-on car crash, it would be unethical to conclude that the passengers might be injured or the cars damaged because you never met the drivers?

The mental health professionals who signed that petition observed what they observed and have had four years of observing Donald Trump’s behavior.

If Mr. Milward knew anything about the DSM manual, he would know that diagnosis is based on “observable behaviors,” and I can assure him that in that same DSM manual there is no category titled “Change of diagnostic criteria due to political affiliation.” Also, the reason the petition was named “Duty to Warn” is just that… because we are mandated to warn if we assess there is a danger.

Also Mr. Milward, if your purpose was to control the message by discrediting the messengers — which obviously you have tried to accomplish by investigating Dr. Lee’s and my political affiliations— well, you have your work cut out for you because in order to do the job properly you’re going to have to investigate the other 59,999 mental health professionals who signed that petition.

Susan Mroz