Tens of thousands of people want Trump examined for narcissism
'He is out of control, even to his own detriment,' according to congresswoman Karen Bass
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Tens of thousands of people are calling for Donald Trump to be examined by doctors for narcissism – and a Harvard medical professor thinks they are right.
The Change.org petition was started by Democratic congresswoman Karen Bass who believes the aspiring president “appears to exhibit all the symptoms of the mental disorder Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).”
She tweeted: “Medical professionals must step up and demand a mental fitness test for the Republican Presidential nominee.”
The petition, signed by almost 25,000 people, states: “Donald Trump is dangerous for our country.
“His impulsiveness and lack of control over his own emotions are of concern. It is our patriotic duty to raise the question of his mental stability to be the commander in chief and leader of the free world.”
Ms Bass sent a series of picture tweets explaining her reasons for suspecting Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder – appearing to use his own quotes as to back up her case.
Harvard Medical School dean prof Flier, backed Mr Bass by tweeting: “Narcissistic personality disorder. Trump doesn't just have it, he defines it.”
But earlier this week, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a warning reminding medical professionals of the Goldwater rule – which forbids them from commenting on individuals who they have not examined themselves.
"We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure," said Maria A. Oquendo, president of the APA.
"The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible," she added.
"Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical."
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments