Former Yale Professor Bandy Lee Sues University Over Termination

I have long been an out-spoken critic of Dr. Bandy Lee, a former faculty member in the School of Medicine and Yale Law School, who has made bizarre and unprofessional statements about the mental fitness of not just former president Donald Trump but his supporters. A favorite expert of MSNBC, Lee never disappointed hosts in declaring that Trump and his supporters are mentally ill and dangerous.  I was one of the first to call out Lee for violating the “Goldwater Rule” in such public diagnosis as she and others laid the foundation for a 25th Amendment removal of Trump within a year of his taking office. After numerous columns denouncing her, I should be relieved by the termination of Lee at Yale, as detailing in her recent  complaint, but free speech and academic freedom tend to make all such controversies more difficult. I actually have serious concerns about the termination.

      Lee and others like Richard Painter warned that Trump was mentally unstable and would likely lead to violent acts or war. Of course, those predictions proved to be wrong like many others presented breathlessly on MSNBC or Salon.  Lee warned about Trump effectively brainwashing people and that figures like Alan Dershowitz were warped by a “shared psychosis” including sexual delusions.Painter, Norm Eisen, George Conway, and others hammered away at Trump’s mental illness — using the diagnosis of Lee and others to make their case. It was precisely what the profession sought to prevent as unethical under the Goldwater Rule. As previously discussed, the use of alleged mental unfitness is a common avenue for attacking one’s opponents in authoritarian countries like Iran, Russia and China. It is also nothing new in the area of presidential politics.  The most serious such abuse occurred in 1964 when Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona ran against Lyndon Johnson.With the help of the media, Goldwater was portrayed as a war monger hell bent on nuclear war, a claim powerfully depicted in the “daisy countdown” commercial showing a child counting down to an atomic explosion with flower petals. Such commercials, however, were not enough for Fact Magazine, which decided to issue a special hit job on Goldwater. The magazine sent out 12,356 letters to psychiatrists asking if they thought Goldwater was mentally ill. Only 2,417 responded, but a majority of those responding stated categorically that Goldwater was unfit due to mental illness, a manifestly unethical conclusion reached without evaluating Goldwater personally. 
    Goldwater was diagnosed as a “megalomaniac,” paranoid,” “grossly psychotic,” and, in what is now being raised against Trump, someone suffering from “narcissistic personality disorder.” Some doctors reached incredible insights into a man who they never spoke to, including one who said that “inwardly a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him.” That is all the magazine needed to proclaim across the front page, “Fact: 1,189 psychiatrists say Goldwater is psychologically unfit to be president!” Goldwater lost by a landslide, despite the fact that there is no evidence that he actually suffered from such mental illness. In response, the American Psychiatric Association adopted the “Goldwater Rule” to bar doctors from making such unethical diagnoses of individuals without evaluating them. It appears that ethics, like constitutional principles, are more often honored in the breach in both politics and psychology.I previously wrote about the dispute with Dershowitz and, while saying that Lee was going harm to her profession and school, raised concerns over the push for termination:

     Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz has reportedly complained to Yale University after Lee suggested that he, and Trump supporters, display a “shared psychosis” with the president. Dershowitz triggered commentary when, in defense of allegations that he had sex with underaged girls during his association with child molester Jeffrey Epstein, he insisted that he had a “perfect sex life.” (Dershowitz is being sued by a woman who said she was forced by Epstein to have sex with him. It is one of a number of lawsuits currently pending against Dershowitz who has always maintained his innocence). As shown in dozens of prior columns, I oppose efforts to get academics punished or fired at their institutions out of concern for free speech and academic freedom. However, I agree with Dershowitz that Lee’s weaponizing psychiatric evaluations in this political debate is inimical to her school and her profession.

This controversy began with a statement on January 2 by University of Minnesota Law Professor Richard Painter. Painter is the former chief White House ethics lawyer in George W. Bush administration and I have been critical of his views on professed crimes and impeachable offenses by Trump as unsupported and unreasonable. It is not surprising to find an alliance with Lee in such comments so, when Painter noted that Dershowitz sounded quite Trumpian in claiming that he has “a perfect, perfect sex Life.”

That triggered Lee who promptly gave her signature shoot-from-the-hip psychiatric analysis:

“Alan Dershowitz’s employing the odd use of ‘perfect’—not even a synonym—might be dismissed as ordinary influence in most contexts. However, given the severity and spread of ‘shared psychosis’ among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers, a different scenario is more likely. There is even proof: his bravado toward his opponent with a question about his own sex life—in a way that is irrelevant to the actual lawsuit—shows the same grandiosity and delusional-level impunity . . . Also identical is the level of lack of empathy, of remorse, and of consideration of consequences (until some accountability comes from the outside—at which time he is likely to lash out equally).”

Dershowitz understandably objected to that outrageous and unprofessional analysis. He said that Lee was declaring “me as psychotic for defending Trump’s constitutional rights.” Dershowitz correctly points out that Lee’s “diagnosis” was based on his use of one of the most commonly words used in the English language:

“Publicly offering “professional opinions” or diagnoses in the absence of a psychiatric examination, is a violation of psychiatric ethics and the rules of the American Psychiatric Association,” he argued. “Dr. Lee has a history of such unethical conduct. She previously diagnosed President Trump as being psychotic. Now she is doubling down accusing me of having a ‘shared psychosis’ with President Trump, and having ‘wholly taken on Trump’s symptoms by contagion . . . She also believes that my use of the word ‘perfect’ — the same word used by Donald Trump in describing his phone call to the Ukrainian President — is evidence of a ‘shared’ psychosis. She does not mention that I used the word ‘perfect’ in the context of rebutting the false accusations against me and proclaiming, quite truthfully, that I have never had sex with any woman other than my wife, since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein . . . I used the word ‘perfect’ in reference to my fidelity during the period in which I was falsely accused, just as someone might say she had a ‘perfect’ attendance record. Moreover, Dr. Lee neglects to mention that the interview during which I used that word took place months before President Trump used it. I guess she believes he caught the contagion from me.”

That response was complete and unassailable in my view. That is where I would have left it rather than go to the school.

In January 2020, Yale reportedly went ahead and terminated Lee.That has led supporters like Painter to denounce the university on MSNBC for violating free speech and insisting the problem is the Goldwater Rule, not Lee.

Lee got more and more sensational in feeding an insatiable appetite on CNN, MSNBC, and various newspapers.  She declared Trump as worst than Hitler: “Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. At least Hitler improved the daily life of his followers, had discipline, and required more of himself to gain the respect of his followers. Even with the same pathology, there are varying degrees of competence.”

As one of the chief voices calling for removal under the 25th Amendment, Painter admits “Nuclear war did not come, so our worst fears never came to be.” However, he insists that the problem is the Goldwater Rule and the ethical rule against diagnosing people in public without any personal evaluation or credible basis. Notably, MSNBC ran Painter’s column but not any acknowledgment of its own role in such unethical use of psychiatric evaluations. Indeed, Painter and a large number of academics have not expressed any sense of responsibility or regret in such sensational and unprofessional declarations by Lee or others in her field. Moreover, Painter has called for the disbarment of conservative lawyers, including United States senators, for voicing their own views of the election and possible fraud.

I have no problem with Dershowitz filing a complaint with the American Psychiatric Association for an alleged unethical violation of its rules. However, Lee’s public statements were heavily intertwined with her political speech and academic views. She could have legitimately disagreement over the Goldwater Rule.  I happen to agree with the Rule but it is not beyond debate or disagreement.

The issue is a close one.  Lee did seem unethical in my view in declaring an individual to be mentally ill without any personal evaluation. Yet, I have been very critical of many lawyers who have made sweeping and unfounded declarations about crimes allegedly committed by Trump.

Former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason insisted Trump committed bribery in the Ukraine scandal. It did not matter that the Supreme Court has roundly rejected such sweeping interpretations of bribery, extortion and related political corruption. Former CNN legal analyst and former House impeachment counsel Norm Eisen claimed in 2018 that, by not responding to Russian aggression, Trump was “colluding in plain sight” and the criminal case against him for obstruction of justice was “devastating.” Professor Richard Painter claimed a clear case for treason. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe declared Trump’s dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering; Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and possible treason by Trump or his family.

I believe that these legal declarations were as sensational and baseless as Lee’s psychiatric declarations. However, I would oppose any move to remove them for espousing such views.  Lee is in some ways helped by her reckless rhetoric, which was clearly motivated by her deep-seated animosity for Trump and his policies.  While media like MSNBC used her to suggest a professional diagnosis of mental illness, she was clearly engaging in political not professional speech.  That creates a concern over any termination for speech outside of the classroom or campus.

Moreover, Lee was open about doing so without any individual interaction with Trump. I would be interested in the specific conclusions of the Yale investigation. I am also curious why it took the Dershowitz letter to prompt action when Lee was widely criticized by many of us for years in the national media.  It was not Lee’s outrageous statements about Trump but her statement about Dershowitz that appeared to motivate the Yale faculty to act. Department head Dr. John Krystal told Lee that she had “breached psychiatric ethics by ‘diagnosing’” Dershowitz from afar and said that her “recklessness of your comments creates the appearance that they are self-serving in relation to your personal political beliefs and other possible personal aspirations.” Yet, both Trump and Dershowitz are public figures. The question is why Lee’s unhinged analysis of Trump for four years was not an equally pressing concern.

There is a distinction to be drawn when a doctor is offering a diagnosis of the mental fitness of a person without any ethical basis for such a diagnosis. These lawyers were basing their conclusions on available evidence.  They were wrong but they were offering their evaluation of the weight of the evidence. Declaring someone mentally ill cannot be reasonable done from a distance, particularly given the hyperbolic and unhinged rhetoric of Lee.

That is why this is a close question and why we need to know more about the findings of the Yale investigation. There is no indication that Lee was doing anything unprofessional in her classes or with patients. That creates a serious concern as to whether she was being punished for her political speech or a violation of school or professional rules of conduct.

145 thoughts on “Former Yale Professor Bandy Lee Sues University Over Termination”

  1. Was she analyzing Trump for the betterment of the nation or for use in a political attack. Considering what venues she used to pronounce her determinations the save the nation option as a motivation would be a reach performed only by the most indoctrinated. Some of the present company included.

  2. Left wing activists have used their positions in academia, Hollywood, and the media to spread propaganda that conservatives are evil for decades. It reached a frenzied pitch with Trump.

    Whenever I hear a Democrat I know tell me that Trump called white supremacists “very fine people”, I know a few things about them. They are gullible, and they didn’t take 5 minutes to look up the video of his speech despite the fact that they must have heard it wasn’t true. So it is clear that they will believe what the Left tells them, and they won’t verify it when told it’s not true.

    We’re tired of this. Over and over again, Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing. It takes willful blindness not to see this. I’m still not sure if people have some sort of amnesia about Democrats looting and burning for months when they claim conservatives are dangerous seditionists because one group one time wrongfully stormed the Capitol, and were condemned by Republicans. I’ve asked a few Democrats directly about this, and they all change the subject.

    I do defend Dr Brandy Lee’s right to say whatever hateful thing she wants without getting arrested. I also believe that social media needs to operate like the phone company. Stay out of people’s conversations. She can say whatever she wants.

    I also believe that the behavior of employees reflect upon businesses. If your employee bragged that he thought steeling was his due, how would homeowners feel about his employment in a carpet cleaning business? Want to go hire that company to come into your home? I wouldn’t spend my hard earned money to send my child to any university that tolerated this kind of blatant hysterical bigotry in their staff. This is mainly because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that academics bring personal far Left politics into the classroom. The campus is now a hostile and unsafe place for a moderate or conservative. It’s like mob training at this point.

    If she fired off racist screeds against black people, should she be employed?

    If teachers and professors left their personal politics at the door, refused to get into political discussions in the classroom, and scrupulously kept their bias out of grading, then I would’t worry about what she said. But the reality is that she’s broadcasting how she views conservatives, including students. That is a hostile environment for them.

    If any university turns political, it should not be given any federal or state taxpayer money. Universities need to be completely non biased, or privately funded. There is certainly a niche for the slavering hostility of far Leftism in businesses, and that includes universities. But it’s not fair that taxpayer funds go to Democrat madrassas.

  3. It’s hardly a close question. Pundit lawyers opining about whether Trump acted criminally, as sketchy as thats is, are under no ethical duty not to do so, as far as I know. Nor is there any ethical requirement that they need for that to do an investigation analogous to required shrink’s in-person meeting(s) with a diagnosee. As you describe it, Lee blatantly violated the Goldwater rule, even over time doubling down on her diagnoses. And there’s a fair inference that some of that was politically motivated, to help lay ground for a Twenty Fifth Amendment removal. Which to my mind deepens her violative conduct as you describe it. On your factual account, Yale was right to let her go. Apart from Yale being a private institution, even state actors, I’d think, can fire employees for First Amendment protected speech that violates ethical canons and is inimical to the core integrity of the institution. And if what she said about Dershowitz is defamatory, then, in any event, protection is lost, at least for the purposes of an action based on it.

    1. The Goldwater Rule only applies to members of the American Psychiatric Association, not to all psychiatrists.

      Is she a member of the American Psychiatric Association? If not, then she’s not bound by the rule.

      1. If she has no psychiatric certificate then her mental diagnosis was practicing medicine illegally. Same difference; her employer is entitled to fire her and may be required to avoid liability.

        You know that as do all fellow TDS victims; you and your ilk instead choose to lie and make believe you’re ignorant of the fact. Please, by all means, continue lying with more denial.

        1. Board certification in psychiatry comes from the state, not from the American Psychiatric Association. Why don’t you know that?

          “You know …”

          I know that you’re a troll, and a boring one at that.

          1. “Board certification in psychiatry comes from the state, not from the American Psychiatric Association”

            Not quite. Licensing comes from the state. Board certification comes from the board appropriate to your specialty, in this case The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. If licensed you can practice without board certification but some jobs may require it or it could lead to better pay. Board certification is an important distinction.

            1. Thanks for the correction, but the point remains: board certification in psychiatry doesn’t come from the American Psychiatric Association.

              The APA is a professional organization, and membership is not required to be a psychiatrist. If she’s not a member, she’s not bound by the Goldwater rule.

      2. If a psychiatrist cannot diagnose Trump’s mental fitness by virtue of his hours of public statements, then it is a worthless profession! What more evidence of his psychology could be had by an in-person evaluation in which he will lie undoubtedly to his shrink. And suppose he refuses to go to a shrink? Is he then immune from psychoanalysis? I suppose our government psychiatrists violate their ethics when they report their psychological findings of the mental unfitness of world leaders to their government bosses. Absurd. Even a layman can tell that Trump is just not right in the head.

        1. Oh but Joe Biden *is* “right in the head”? Sure thing. What do you say? Six more months before they install Kamala?

        2. Why won’t Biden agree to take the same cognitive test Trump took after the fuss in the media over his mental capacity? President Trump took the cognitive test, aced it, released the results TO THE PRESS. Why won’t President Biden do the same to put to rest all the stories about HIS mental capacity?

          We all know why.

          1. Better yet, why is the biased corrupt media NOT shouting day and night that President Biden should also take a cognitive test AND release ALL of his medical records and whether he has had any treatments in the past six months that have NOT BEEN revealed to the public? Why isn’t the media shouting for President Biden to prove HIS cognitive capacity is doing just fine? Why not? Is only President Trump required to prove this much? Bull sh*t. We all know why the media tip topes politely around President Joe Biden. They KNOW if they confront him, he will explode in angry outbursts the way he always does. It’s part Joe Biden’s nasty SOB personality and part Joe Biden’s senility.

            The media is a corrupt useless POS So is Joe Biden. We ALL know it. Just some of us admit it.

            1. Biden flew back to DC from Delaware tonight and with all that’s going on, what does the corrupt fake news press ask the president? “What did you give up for Lent?” and “what do you most look forward to having after Lent?”

              I kid you not. This is corrupt fake news media today.

              1. Real (not fake) media would shout out questions like, ” when will you take a cognitive test and release the results to the American people, sir?”

                Hahahah but like that would ever happen to a Democrat.

            2. “We ALL know it.”

              Whether something/someone is “a corrupt useless POS” is a matter of opinion, not knowledge, so no one knows it. Some have that opinion and others don’t.

          2. Trump did not undergo anything more than a “mini mental status” exam, which can be in a few minutes at the bedside. If a patient is demented or severely mentally impaired in some sphere, e.g., short-term memory, that may be revealed. This sort of “field” testing is no approximation of formal neuropsych testing. But gross cognitive capabilities have not been in question with Trump. It is his psychiatric fitness, and terms like “sociopathic,” “narcissist,” dangerousness, empathy, temperment, etc., speak to this.

            George Wallace had a much stronger claim to being psychiatrically/psychologically than Trump does.

            1. ” But gross cognitive capabilities have not been in question with Trump.”

              You guys have thrown nothing but BS at the guy and when convenient change the story. That is a hallmark of who you are. Deceitful!

              ” It is his psychiatric fitness, and terms like “sociopathic,” “narcissist,” dangerousness, empathy, temperment, etc., speak to this.”

              This is what needs to be feared about you and the left. You guys can watch a riot burn property down, loot, threaten, harm and kill while at the same time you can announce that the riot was peaceful. It was sociopathic, but truth means little where you come from.

      3. “. . . she’s not bound by the rule.”

        That’s bizarre. She’s not a member of a professional organization, so she’s *not* required to be an ethical professional?! So a surgeon who’s not board certified can operate while drunk? And a research biologist who’s not a member of ASCB is free to fabricate data?

        1. Board certification and membership in a professional organization aren’t the same or even analogous, and a surgeon who operates while drunk can be sued.

          You believe that the Goldwater Rule is a matter required by ethics. Some people agree with you, including some psychiatrists. But other psychiatrists disagree and believe that it’s an unethical constraint on free speech. It doesn’t have nearly the level of agreement as something like “researchers shouldn’t fabricate data.”

          Yes, she should be ethical. The question is: what does that require? She argues that being ethical requires her to speak out as part of a “duty to warn.” At least deal with her actual argument.

          1. “But other psychiatrists disagree and believe that it’s an unethical constraint on free speech.”

            You are confused. The constraint of free speech is a governmental constraint, not a private one. If psychiatrists have a problem with the Goldwater Rule they can take it up with the APA which they voluntarily join.

            1. You are confused, Allan. The First Amendment is a constraint on the government, but the meaning of “free speech” is not limited to the First Amendment. The constraint of free speech is not just a governmental constraint, as is clear from Turley’s many columns about speech constraints in private educational institutions, speech constraints at Twitter, etc.

              Lee has chosen not to join the APA. Some psychiatrists who are members have already taken it up with the APA.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid did I say she could not say what she did? No. She was free to say what she pleased. Government cannot interfere with that speech but private companies can.

                Twitter is an example except due to certain laws the Twitter case meant that government could limit freedom of speech by proxy. In this instance the limitation is private.

                Your argument was “But other psychiatrists disagree and believe that it’s an unethical constraint on free speech.” 1st amendment is a constraint on government. The complaint of “unethical constraint” is very vague, near meaningless and gratuitous. Lee’s free speech has only been constrained by a private organization so you don’t seem to be making a point that is meaningful.

                Then again you are often confused

                1. This is one of Anonymous the Stupid’s pretend friends. Get rid of the trash. Throw out all anonymous responses and save time

                  1. It’s interesting: when someone else complains about the commenting system, you call them ungrateful, but here you are complaining about the commenting system.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t concern myself with the comment system. I am appalled at the constant ignorant bashing of Turley that lacks intelligent commentary.

                    2. SM wrote:

                      “I don’t concern myself with the comment system.”


                      Sure your don’t, pal.

                      Get. A. Life.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, it is amazing how you can reply without responding to anything I said.

                      All you do is roll on the floor and laugh like a hyena.

        2. It is unethical for a psychiatrist (or a psychologist) to discuss in public the diagnosis of someone who *is* a patient. How does it suddenly become ethical if that person is *not* a patient? The latter is, in fact, lower than the former.

          If she wanted to criticize Trump’s *politics*, she could have done so, outside the scope of her professional obligations. Instead, she weaponized psychiatry. She’s the type of irresponsible scum who’d happily serve as the State’s Psychiatry Czar.

          1. Under HIPAA, it’s generally illegal for a medical professional to discuss a patient’s medical diagnoses, treatment, history without the patient’s permission. Among the exceptions are if there’s a court order or if there’s a serious risk posed by the patient to himself or others. Dr. Lee has argued that Trump posed a serious risk to others.

            You may disagree with her, but at least deal with the actual argument she’s making and the actual medical ethics that guide it.

              1. I consider it unethical to lie about what people have said. Do you?

                Dr. Lee hasn’t made any claims about divination. It’s especially ironic that you’re making claims about ethics while not committing to ethical discussion yourself.

                1. “Divined” is a verb, and describes perfectly the mental action she used to weaponize psychiatry.

          2. “It is unethical for a psychiatrist”

            If one actually needs psychiatric care, one should try and avoid any professional that acts in the fashion Lee does. She demonstrates that she is not fit for the job. One would be forced to consider if she is treating a patient or pushing a political agenda.

            Because Wokeness has invaded the field of psychiatry and psychology I have seen some smart people write about how to avoid a Woke therapist.

  4. Prob 1: Lee took on a lawyer who can take on Yale and win;
    Prob 2: Lee took on a member of a class more protected than hers.

  5. Dr. Lee is not a member of the American Psychiatric Association and so is not bound by the so-called Goldwater Rule.

    1. The APA, like the AMA, does not license practitioners. They are voluntary organizations, like the ELKS, but less useful. States license medical people and it is likely that if she is licensed anywhere her state has similar prohibitions.

        1. She current holds a physician’s license in New York. Psychiatrists are physicians who have completed a residency in psychiatry.

    2. So in your opinion Davey & cato… Ms Lee can be a complete azzhat politically bent woke psycho herself and you fellas are aok with that. Gotcha.

    3. “. . . is not bound by the so-called Goldwater Rule.”

      That’s bizarre. She’s not a member of a professional organization, so she’s not required to be an ethical professional?! So a surgeon who’s not board certified can operate while drunk? And a research biologist who’s not a member of ASCB is free to fabricate data?

  6. Please don’t get squishy on this, Prof. Turley! Lee spoke outside the bounds of best medical practices.

  7. The right to fee speech does not equate to the right to hold a highly-visible and influential job, such as a dual Yale faculty position in Medicine and Law.

    As far as I can tell, Lee still has her free speech rights intact as a citizen, the same a you and I do. She just got used to having a bigger megaphone, and grew to take it for granted. She willfully violated the standards of her profession, and likely defamed and disrespected colleagues in violation of Yale standards of conduct.

    The First Amendment only constrains the power of government to control speech and communication, and generally speaking, there are wide vistas of government control over deceptive misinformation, in everything from filing your tax return and company’s SEC reports to medical device and pharmaceutical claims, to lying to the FBI, perjuring yourself in Court, attempting to defraud a Court or Jury, violating a gag rule imposed by a Court settlement, adherence to Non-Disclosure Agreements made with government, etc.

    I am a big opponent of the Sullivan decision, and hope to see the SC revisit it in my lifetime — and to reinstate the anti-defamation deterrence power conferred on politicians and public figures to the same level enjoyed by us nobodies.

  8. Let’s stop and think about what kind of a person would want her fifteen minutes of fame so badly that she would compromise her reputation and the reputation of Yale. Surely, whether on the left or the right one can see her lack of ethical seriousness. What would drive her mind to think that her actions were somehow justified. She must need the approbation of her friends in extreme dependence. Doctor heal thyself.

    1. Consider the possibility that she believes what she said, and it’s not about 15 minutes of fame.

          1. And that of course puts you in the psycho woke camp. Ms Lee is a woke partisan apparatchik…and you are a fanboy of that insanity.

  9. Turley- “Lee did seem unethical in my view in declaring an individual to be mentally ill without any personal evaluation.”

    Ethical problems may be a gentle way of dealing with a prickly staffing problem. Given her comments I shouldn’t be surprised if there were more grave reasons for terminating her. She does not come across as someone who is very stable.

  10. “. . . free speech and academic freedom . . .”

    Neither of those are the fundamental issues in this case. Lee is guilty of professional *malpractice* — in the same way as is a research scientist who fabricates an experiment or a legal scholar who willfully deceives the court. And her malpractice was a pattern.

    She deserves to be fired.

      1. She hasn’t even been charged with malpractice, much less convicted. Perhaps you’re not a very good lawyer.

  11. She violated the Hippocratic Oath and her obligation as a physician. Enough said. She should have been fired on the spot.

      1. Excerpts from a version of the Hippocratic Oath recited by medical graduates:
        “I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug…
        I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know…
        I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm…”
        From another another version:
        “Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood…
        Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast…”

        Whether those exact words were spoken or not, in any version the principles are consistent. There is a moral/ethical code that is expected to be upheld by all physicians. She undoubtedly has violated that oath and her duty as a physician.

        1. Trump wasn’t ever a patient of hers, and her statements about him were based on things he said in public, not on anything he said in private that she happened to overhear.

          According to you, what did she do that violated the Hippocratic Oath?

            1. No, pp. 14-15 don’t say anything about the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, “Hippocratic Oath” doesn’t appear anywhere in that document. Seems like you’re trying to move the goalposts instead of just admitting that you’re wrong about the Hippocratic Oath.

  12. These lawyers were basing their conclusions on available evidence. They were wrong but they were offering their evaluation of the weight of the evidence.

    Is that what they were doing. It would have been believable had they been right, say once. Or if their opinions had not been skewed in one direction every time. What was obvious is the MSM weaponized the credentials of these professionals to spew misinformation in an effort to manipulate public opinion. They operated in coordination with Big Tech and Congressional Democrats to disable a sitting President and his administration. Their silence regarding the current President and his administration is the most obvious reflection on how their political bias has completely overwhelmed their ethics. Is that the free speech hill we should be defending? It sounds a lot like defending the moron falsely yelling fire in a crowed theater.

  13. Bandy Lee has a position of authority. Her present medical ethics violation is a repeat of past performances. Her position of authority is dangerous. The weaponization of psychiatry is not part of her job description, in fact it is contrary to it and is a violation of professional rules of conduct.

    1. Note to self: nobody can gaslight like a psychiatrist. That’s what I learned about psychiatry from Dr. Lee.

    1. This type of video appeals to Stupid people who cannot defend their position. That is why they promote a vacuous cartoon rather than fact.

      Non credible, and fact-less is what describes the poster. Take note of the middle finger used in the video. That is the essence of those that can’t think. The video is well done, but when Antifa and BLM were rioting destroying lives and property these same people were silent and supportive. That makes everything they say worthless.

    2. Lets do away with the police and law and order in general and see how many of you unarmed punks make it threw the period of self protection

  14. ” I was one of the first to call out Lee for violating the “Goldwater Rule” in such public diagnosis as she and others laid the foundation for a 25th Amendment removal of Trump within a year of his taking office. ”

    Perhaps you Professor, should have supported the removal of Baby Trump using the 25th early on. If you had, and if it would have succeeded, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people would not have died from COVID-19. Several Capitol police would still be alive as no insurrection promoted by Heir Baby Trump would have happened.

    Oh how history would be different if the maniacal baby trump had been terminated from office much, much sooner.

    1. “Oh how history would be different if the maniacal baby trump had been terminated from office much, much sooner.”

      Please elaborate?

      How exactly would history be different had Trump been replaced by Pence?

    2. You are an idiot. The 25th is to be used if the President is deemed to be unfit mentally, not if you disagree politically. And in the ultimate irony we now have a President who can’t string to coherent sentences together. Could not remember what state he was in, what office he was running for or how many grandchildren he had just for starters. At his first ” press conference ” he needed a schematic with names and faces and the order to be called on list of ” journalists “. Did not use notes as bullet points but rather as total content of statements of policy positions. On foreign policy he never looked up once as he was reading verbatim ” his” response to a question
      And still lost train of thought numerous times. If there was ever a candidate for the 25th it is Dementia Joe.
      Not sure if that was not the plan all along.
      Then we will have a President that did not get ONE VOTE in her party’ s primary.

    3. BabyTrump has a common pattern of thought that should be recognized. He comes to conclusions that are provable only in his mind. This is a pattern of thought that reveals a presence of thinking immaturity. His avatar would be more aptly displayed as BabyBabyTrump.

    4. Ha! Ha! As if Demented Joe would have prevented those same deaths. Operation Warp Speed would never had been thought of under Demented Joe. And all the deaths since January 20–those are now on him, right Baby?

  15. I disagree. Academics should be allowed a great deal of free speech protections for statements or writings in an academic setting – in the classroom and in academic or university publications. But hawking disturbing political views that discredit the university on a cable news program does not fall within the ambit of academic discourse.

    1. It totally agree. This also is unprofessional, and she should be admonished by those medical groups with which she is associated. Using her degree to personally castigate someone is unethical.

  16. Thank you, yet again for your loyalty to free speech ….and fairness regardless of which side a person is on. I’ve abhorred what this woman said for years, but I embrace her right to say it.

Leave a Reply