Comments on: Dry drunk and paranoid?

By: Making Chutney

Making Chutney — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:14:40 +0000

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…

By: jesse owens

jesse owens — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:09:29 +0000

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.

By: Karen

Karen — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:27:06 +0000

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.

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:04:34 +0000

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.

By: Melanie

Melanie — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:00:22 +0000

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.

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:18 +0000

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.

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:47:38 +0000

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@

By: chutney

chutney — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:52:43 +0000

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.

By: CP

CP — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:41:04 +0000

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…

By: CP

CP — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:31:33 +0000

Wow. Wow. Wow.