On the face of it, it seems unnecessary to add to Langford's excellent response to Gartner's absurd thesis on Donald Trump's mental state.Reference Gartner, Langford and O'Brien¹ But Langford makes one important mistake: Gartner does not ‘expect the American people to thank him gratefully for his expert medical opinion’, because Gartner is not a medical doctor and so cannot give a medical opinion. On the contrary, he is a clinical psychologist and does not claim to be a psychiatrist (personal communication, 9 November 2018).

This is highly pertinent to the debate for two reasons. First, it renders his demand upon the psychiatric profession to lower its ethical standards even more unreasonable. Second, it begs the question of why a psychiatrist was not invited to argue for this motion on a topic of ethics in psychiatry, in a psychiatric journal. If none could be found to argue for the motion, there is no debate to be had.

O'Brien, as chair of the debate, is quite incorrect in introducing Gartner as a ‘US psychiatrist’.Reference Gartner, Langford and O'Brien¹ I respectfully call upon the Journal to formally publish a correction.