The Debate on Mandatory Annual Mental Health Assessments for Elected Officials

The Debate on Mandatory Annual Mental Health Assessments for Elected Officials

Introduction

The debate over the imposition of mandatory annual mental health assessments for individuals holding elected office is a complex and multi-faceted issue. The primary question at the heart of this debate is who decides what constitutes a 'passing' screening and who ultimately gets to choose the candidate for public office. This decision-making process raises significant ethical and practical concerns.

Screenings: For What and by Whom?

The process of conducting these screenings is intricate, with several critical questions to be addressed:

Precisely which conditions or what level of severity should be disqualifying: For instance, should someone with ADHD be disqualified? What about a history of anxiety or depression treated through therapy? Does having been in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or having another learning disability impact the decision? What about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)? The selection of a specialist: Would candidates choose their own specialist, or would someone be assigned by a central authority? Would it involve a single assessment or a panel? Would candidates be entitled to a second opinion?

These fundamental questions highlight the potential for a tyranny of details in such a policy. It raises serious concerns about the integrity of the process and the role of an individual or body in making these crucial decisions.

Personal Reflections and Professional Insights

From a personal and professional perspective, many individuals have voiced skepticism about the necessity and practicality of such screenings. In a recent conversation with a mental health professional, the following points were discussed:

Alyson: I know of no career other than maybe that of police officers that requires repeated psychological tests, and the idea that our politicians would ever submit to involuntary such practices is pure fantasy. I think it might be a good idea for many of us, but those in power are least likely to follow such a regime or enforce such laws. Even in speeches, how many times have you heard a politician admit to psychosocial issues, even if they are quite apparent?

Professional: The tests would be invalid as all we could measure would be how many times the candidate told lies in a deception scale. Historically, as a mental health professional, I could have easily found a diagnosis for anyone that walked into my office. People should have mental health assessments when they want/need them, and if someone is a danger, they should have one immediately.

Rethinking the Position

Recent events have led some to reconsider the initial stance on mandatory mental health assessments. The experiences and behaviors of recent political figures suggest that there may be a need for such evaluations. As one writer notes:

Until recently, I would have said 'No!' Almost everyone has some quirk, anxiety, depression, etc. – or has had it – or will have it. Many of our legislators have been characters – the most recent election for a chief executive is leading me to rethink this position.

A person who is unable to tell the truth, lacks a moral or ethical core, feels no shame for their disgusting behavior, and appears to have no regard for rules or others' feelings should be subject to verification of their psychological fitness for a position of extreme trust. Evaluating for conditions like sociopathy, narcissism, schizophrenia, and mania—which impact one's capacity to understand and fulfill their duties faithfully, honestly, and ethically—may be necessary.

While mandatory annual mental health assessments may seem onerous, the potential benefits in terms of public safety and the integrity of our elected officials cannot be dismissed. Continuous dialogue and thoughtful examination of the details are crucial steps towards finding a balanced approach to this complex issue.

Conclusion: The debate over mandatory annual mental health assessments for elected officials remains contentious. It is a matter that requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as a balanced and ethical approach to decision-making. The ongoing discussion and reflection on this issue are essential for ensuring the integrity of our political system.