No, it was about comments Dr. Phil made about him. This was quite a while ago and I've long since forgotten the exact specifics, but here's what happened.
On one of DP's shows he talked about Cruise and his weird behavior. Made a lot of statements like, "Cruise does X, which is often a sign of [some clinical term], and his doing Y is a classic symptom of [some other term], and it's clear to me that there's strong reason to suspect that Cruise suffers from [some disorder]."
Cruise's public response was, in essence, "My God, isn't Dr. Phil a talented man! A genius! Most therapists would need to meet people and talk to them extensively in a clinical setting to assess their mental health. But not him! He and I have never met at all, but that's not a problem. He doesn't know my clinical history, or if I even have one -- but not a problem for him! And while it's true that we all have different personalities in different situations, we act differently with our kids, our romantic partners, our coworkers, that's not a problem either. He can see only a few scraps of just my public persona and make a diagnosis!"
DP responded immediately, screeching "I never made a diagnosis! I just said that these things he does are signs of that problem, I never said that he has that problem!" He backpedaled like hell. And with good reason. Diagnosing someone without their permission or some other authorization (e.g., a court order) is a violation of the APA's code of ethics.
DP got himself off the hook with that weaselly hair splitting. But Cruise had it right. When a person publicly presents himself as a mental health expert, calls himself "Doctor," and makes statements like those about a specific person, with a lot of clinical terminology, he *is* making a diagnosis, whether he wants to admit it or not.
Incidentally, DP gave up his license to practice about fifteen years ago. I'm pretty sure that was after this incident. Probably so he could do crap like this and get away with it.
reply
share