Hubris syndrome and a new perspective on political psychiatry: need to protect prosocial behavior, public benefit and safety of our civilisation.

The amazing world of psychiatry today is more than medical specialty. It is a „broad church“ of disparate discources and different practicies (Lolas 2010). Psychiatry has several partial or fragmentary identities related to its biologic, psychodinamic, and social subspecialties with many psychiatric schools. Many of the psychiatric schools, not only do not accept, but critize the most basic tenets and treatment principles of the others (Jakovljević 2008). Political psychiatry is a black sheep among different branches of contemporary psychiatry because neither its theoretical concept is well formulated nor its practice is established as a coherent field. Psychiatry can play an essential role in society in generall through its understanding of human nature and behavior in complex interactions. In psychiatry there has been a prevaling tendency to reduce the role of scope of the profession in dealing with political issues which is considered to be outside the proper sphere of competence and propriety. With his paper on the hubris syndrome, David Owen has made important contributions to the new perspective on scope and role of political psychiatry which should be warmly welcomed. From Greek origin, the word hubris specifically refers to „the excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in classical tragedy“ (Encarta Concise English Dictionary, 2001) or „a tale of how an honourable man pursuing honourable goals was afflicted with arogant pride and led his nation towards catastrophe“ (Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary, 2006). The word hubris also includes the meaning of „inviting disaster“ (Russel 2011). Owen's contribution to the political psychiatry should not be eclipsed by the psychiatry of politicians, because his work has relevance for all MDs and psychiatrists who care for patients who are VIPs (very important persons) holding other powerfull professional positions, for example in corporate business like multinational companies, banks, etc. He also described physical and mental illnesses which may impair the quality of decisions made by political leaders affecting the interest of people they represent. In addition, his case histories revealed the common tendency for politicians to keep their illnesses secret thereby avoiding the best medical advice and treatment. What is even more important, he proposed remedial measures to minimise the impact of ill health on the politicians' ability to deal with affairs of state (Russel 2011).