It's Ethically Wrong to Diagnose Clinton and Trump From Afar
"Hi. I'm Art Caplan from the NYU Langone Medical Center's Division of Medical Ethics. We're in the political season, and it has become very popular for doctors, psychologists, and others to diagnose the candidates running for president. Donald Trump has been made the object of all sorts of psychiatric, psychological, and psychoanalytical diagnoses. Hillary Clinton has also been subject to analyses of her stamina, her neurologic conditions, and whether her balance is proper. I think all of this is ethically despicable."
I have read/heard a few physician discussions of Hillary Clinton's conditions, none of them amounted to a diagnosis, or even an attempt to diagnose a condition. Instead these physicians have simply indicated that they think the problems Hillary had in the past, her known medical conditions, and her known treatment regimens warrant a public disclosure of her medical records, and/or a full independent medical workup.
This is not "diagnosis." The good Ph. D. "Piled higher and Deeper" is simply wrong for so inferring.
There may be other physicians who have made on the fly "diagnosis" of Hillary, and if so I would agree this is inappropriate. I have not seen anything like that.
With Trump I have not seen a medical/psych opinion but I believe there have been a few. My guess is these are made by adherents of Hillary intending to undermine Trump. If they amount to an on the fly mental diagnosis, they are inappropriate. Most of what I see with the Donald is journalists who he has inflamed making inane statements about his mental stability. These people know nothing about anything, I would hope that the readers would take anything they say with a grain of salt.