It’ll be interesting to see how this story develops. A couple of DC doctors are admitting they they are treating Bush for depression and paranoia. Staffers appear worried and are warning Republican Congressional candidates to stay away from the President.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.
“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”
It’s difficult to come up with a compassionate response to this. I’m working on the early stages of a mental health anti-stigma campaign for work, and I’ve long struggled with how to publicly acknowledge my own depression (and treament). I don’t want Bush “outed” for his mental illness, and I’m worried that if this story is true it could set back the anti-stigma cause.
Maybe there should be a stigma for dry alcoholism. Alcoholics before and during treament are one case; alcoholics who knowingly refuse treatment are another. You can’t macho your way out of these things, as Bush’s reportedly erratic behavior would seem to indicate. It will leak out—one way or another—if you don’t properly deal with it. To know you’re an alcoholic and to not accept treatment (as seems the case with Bush) requires a level of self-deception I’m not comfortable with in a leader.
The exact pharmaceuticals Bush is reportedly taking are unknown at this point (and should stay that way). But knowing what they are would make for better understanding of his exact condition.
And then I’m wondering how this story is being confirmed by physicians in the light of doctor-patient confidentiality. I suppose it’s possible that they’ve decided that it’s in the national interest to make this public, and Presidents’ medical conditions are usually a matter of public record. But could this be their way of telling us Bush is too instable to do the job?
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
I guess being President would be really, really stressful, and so many people are on anti-depressants today, that Bush being treated for mild depression wouldn’t be that extraordinary. The paranoia part more unsettling, especially given recent events. What I’m wondering is, why aren’t CNN and MSNBC reporting on this? I would think this would be big news, if it were true…
I think the paper it comes from is a DC gossip sheet. It’s pretty respected, but still. That’s why I’m wondering where this story will go.
As a psychologist who has worked with alcoholics, I find these “diagnostic” comments to be very difficult to believe. I recall seeing Bush at the press conference described, and it seemed that he had begun to walk away from the podium when he was asked a question. I’m not sure that he actually heard the question. He has made numerous personal appearances since, and there has been no evidence of “erratic behavior” or of the rage that is associated with being “a dry drunk.” Indeed, he seems to cope with stress with a gentle sort of humor.
While there is no public knowledge of Bush having had drug/alcohol treatment, we are not aware of what he has done privately. Perhaps the “proof” of his on-going recovery is the fact that he has remained sober for many years– despite the stresses of poliitical life.
In my opinion, Bush does give evidence of some c.n.s. dysfunction ( what is called commonly a learning disability) in his confusions about words, etc. While this may be very frustrating to him and misunderstood by others who confuse this with lack of intelligence, the problem is not connected with any mental instability.
I don’t know what is meant by “strong” antidepressants as most antidepressant medications are about the same. They do not produce a “high” but rather enable the individual to have the energy to move beyond negativity. It is a question of titrating the dose so that symptoms are relieved without causing side effects.
Certainly, none of these medications, if prescribed properly, would cloud an individual’s judgement. Although rare today, there are still some psychiatrists who are wary of any drug treatment– especially some psychoanalysts.There has been a long-standing argument that alcoholics could become addicted to certain anti-anxiety drugs, but I am not aware that antidepressants are contraindicated for which there is no addictive potential. In fact, if an individual were not clinically depressed, these medications would not have any effect.
JB August 1, 2004@
Thanks. I was confused by “strong antidepressants” too. And I’m not the least concerned by someone taking antidepressants or anti-anxiety pharmas, since I take one and my wife takes the other.
My concern is with the supposed “paranoid megalomania.” In one instance, though, it said “untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies.” Tendencies and a full-on diagnosis seem two entirely different things to this armchair psychiatrist. And how can someone be partially megalomaniacal?
I’m uncomfortable with a diagnosis from afar, which seems to be what Frank & Co. are doing. Yet the White House doctor seems to be confirming this, or at least that’s how the story is written. It’s possible this is yet another example of a journalist writing about something that’s over her head and getting it all wrong in the process.
It’s also too good to be true—at least for this Iraq War opposer. If we got confirmation of this from a more respectable source, Kerry would be a shew-in in November.
It’s a violation of both the confidentially laws and HEPPA for a doctor to admit that someone is in treatment with them. I have grave doubts about this article.
Me too. Unless there’s an exception for Presidential health records, the White House doctor wouldn’t be able to release this without the President’s prior permission.
This is unbelieveable. I don’t like the man, I don’t accept him as an actual American president, and I certainly hope the rest of the voting age citizenry joins me on November 2 to make that perfectly clear. Nonetheless, as a rational human being, I find it impossible to accept that any physician in good standing would make public such information about a present or former patient. I believe this is a stupidly vicious attack on a person who has a demonstrably bad record. Such attacks simply undermine the credibility of other, valid criticism. There is nothing good I will say about GW Bush, but I will not stoop to inventing disparaging information.
If Bill Clinton’s sex life is top priority, I think a so-called “war president’s” mental health is pretty important too. I don’t see why we should be sensitive about his mental illness (if he has one) when he hasn’t done anything to support programs for the mentally ill.
Update: Dry drunk and paranoid…
Capitol Hilll Blue is reporting again on Bush’s supposedly depressed, erratic, and paranoid behavior. Confirmation of Bush taking “powerful antidepressants” is now more explicit. And there are other, more troubling developments:
Whi…