Dr. Drew Tries to Defend His Habit of Diagnosing Celebrities in the Press

In a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, addiction specialist and TV personality, Dr. Drew was asked about going under fire for his tendency to diagnose celebrities he hasn't actually treated. His response fails to address the real issue with his actions.

In response to the question, he had this to say:

"It's bizarre to me that you can have political commentators, sports commentators, weather commentators, but with medicine, people go, 'You can't do that.' It's like, if you show me a picture of a rash, I don't have to know the person to tell you what that rash is. There are lots of medical conditions that you can diagnose never having met the person."

This would be a logical enough response if it wasn't an obvious straw man argument. The point he avoids addressing is that it goes against medical ethics to publicly speculate about a celebrity's disorders, especially a celebrity he hasn't personally treated. No one is questioning his medical expertise. Surely, he would be able to identify a rash from a picture. The problem is he's not identifying some anonymous rash. He picks on celebrities who are in the public eye and then broadcasts what he believes to be their psychological diagnoses. Technically, since they are not his patients, there is no doctor-patient confidentiality and he can get away with it. But that does not make it any less ethically questionable.

In addition, his judgments are based on tabloid rumors and short snippets of interview footage, which is naturally edited to generate the most media buzz. And unlike the celebrities that submit their mental health to media scrutiny by participating in shows like "Celebrity Rehab," unsuspecting people in the public eye like Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen have not sought, and presumably, don't want his input. Especially when it's all over the media. One could even consider his comments to be slanderous since he does not have sufficient information to be making these claims no matter what he says. Just because something looks like addiction or mania through the lens of a paparazzi camera does not mean it is.

So it's not just like weather or political commentators. A political pundit is not picking apart something as private as mental health. One would think someone held in such high esteem as doctors are would use a little more discretion with these speculations.