To Interview Deliberate The Appointment Evaluation: Fill & Download for Free

I am going to preface this answer with my standard advice to read it yourself. People have put a lot of work into making it easy and available. Take advantage. The text is free. An audio reading is free on audible. All that is required is about 27% of the time it takes to watch all of Game of Thrones.[1] You are more than capable of doing so.It’s worth it.That said, this is going to be my personal cliff notes analysis. I wanted to write this up before the July 17th testimony just so that some of you who simply aren’t going to read the full report (which is okay) but would like to know a bit about what sort of actual criminal activity is being discussed can get caught up.For ease of reading, I will break this answer into different sections. A few distinctions need to be made before we really begin if we are to have an educated and productive discourse.Clarification Regarding The Possibility of ChargesFirst, there is one thing we really need to establish:In Mueller’s view, he could not have found the President to have committed a crime. Like, no matter what, finding that the President had committed a crime was not even on the table.I understand if you are confused. After all, wasn’t the whole point of the investigation to determine whether the President had committed a crime?This is where the assertion—which Mueller holds as true—that a sitting president may not be indicted in criminal court but only impeached by Congress, becomes really important.It is a fundamental principal of American jurisprudence that everyone should be entitled to defend themselves against accusations. In America—at least on a theoretical level—we hold that even someone like Timothy McVeigh or Dylann Roof deserves the right to present a legal defense. And if McVeigh and Roof are entitled to that right, you can be damn sure that the President is as well.In America, the primary means by which a person defends themselves against a charge of criminal activity is legal defense in court. Everyone is entitled to legal council which will refute the charges as they are able before the jury. The right to such a defense is fundamental to American justice.Because a sitting president cannot be indicted in a criminal court, they are denied that right to defense.Here is how it was worded in the report itself:We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the JusticeManual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes… Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through aspeedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. [Volume II, Page 2, DCP 214]In short, if Mueller had found Trump to have committed a crime and Congress had not chosen to impeach, the President would be denied the fundamental right to defend himself or to clear his name in court. No one would be able to refute Mueller’s accusation, and that was a degree of overreach that Mueller was not content to hold.And I have to say, I think that is a very admirable position. The right to legal defense has already been eroded to a shocking degree, and I am glad to see that Mueller’s concern for justice restrained him from further erosion in pursuit of personal glory.So Mueller couldn’t have accused the President of a crime. He never sought to. The aim of his investigation was to present a case to Congress so that they could make a decision regarding whether or not to impeach. No matter what Trump had done, the Report would not have accused him of a crime, and could not have done so.Okay, now here is where things get complicated.DisclaimerThis answer contains my own personal interpretation. I just want to be clear about that from the outset. Not every one of my conclusions is entirely substantiated by indisputable evidence, and I don’t mean to pretend otherwise. That said, as someone who has read the full report twice now and read Volume II four times, I feel that I have a pretty clear picture of the wrongdoing that actually occurred. Those who were prejudiced toward the whole affair being a witch hunt are unlikely to be convinced, which is their right, but I believe that there is substantial evidence to support the following narrative.An answer like this, which aims to concisely summarize a great deal of information, is naturally a bit difficult to properly footnote. I will do my best, and if anyone doubts the authenticity of any of my claims, I will happily provide page numbers to support them when I am able. Any direct quotes will be noted in a [volume, page, document cloud page (DCP) number] format.An Important NoteThe central finding of the report was that Russia did in fact actively meddle in the American electoral process, and that aiding the election of Donald Trump was among their primary goals. This is indeed one of the first things established in the report. There is no doubt that agents of the Russian government actively sought to help Trump’s election campaign.Now, to be clear, that is not in and of itself criminal. The fact that Russia helped Trump get elected does not criminally implicate Trump in any way, so long as he didn’t knowingly and actively assist the interference. That is really important.The word that the President has chosen to repeat in his affirmations of personal innocence is “collusion,” but that isn’t the word that Mueller uses himself. Mueller focuses instead on “coordination,” which he defines as follows:We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. [Volume I, Page 2, DCP 10]Now, I get the impression that many Conservatives read that and immediately cried victory. After all, it is clear, right? No collusion, or coordination, or whatever!However, as you can see, that quote is taken from the second page of the report. There was a bit more to follow, and I think that those who happily claimed victory so early on may have glossed over the important points in Volume II.But let’s take a minute to acknowledge the full implications of the above quoted statement. Mueller, in a thorough investigation, did not find that Trump had knowingly coordinated with Russian agents. That is pretty big. I am a Liberal, so I can understand the tendency to “yes, but” on such issues, but I want to take a moment to recognize the facts. There does not appear to be evidence that Donald Trump knowingly collaborated with Russian agents to undermine the American electoral process.Now, to be clear, Trump still benefitted from Russian influence, no doubt about it. He even worked with Russian agents. The key is that there is no evidence that he knew that they were agents at the time. That means it isn’t criminal.I feel like my Liberal readers are likely shaking their heads in bewilderment right now, and Trumpists are likely about ready to chuckle their socks off. No Collusion! Not so fast.I said that this was going to be cliff notes, but I have begun it like a research paper, so let me change gears before I bore you to death.Here is a summary of what I believe actually went down. Make of it what you will.My Interpretation SummarizedSo we have established that Russia helped Trump to get elected, but he wasn’t aware of it at the time. No criminal activity so far.After the election, however, information began to surface indicating that Trump’s election campaign had been willfully aided by a foreign government. Still not criminal, on Trump’s part at least, but not a good look.Now I think that even Conservative readers will allow me to posit that Donald Trump is something of an egotist. Regardless of whether you support or oppose his political and economic philosophy (if indeed they can be so described), I hope that we can all agree that the President has a fairly high opinion of himself. He is clearly proud of his accomplishments.Among those accomplishments, his successful election campaign is supreme, and rightly so. Donald Trump did the unthinkable: in a nation that called him a joke, he managed to become POTUS. That is just about his greatest accomplishment, by any measure. It is the most irrefutable evidence of his greatness, and it is only natural that he wants to be given credit for it.Are we all in agreement so far? I expect that even the President’s most fervent supporters will concede me this point.So then when the news came out that Russia had interfered in the election in a way that favored him, his first natural reaction was that people would try to deny him credit for his single greatest achievement. They would say that he had only won because of Russia. He was unwilling to allow that to happen.Which leads me to my thesis.I sincerely believe, on the basis of the report, that the President’s personal narcissism and determination to be given full credit and recognition for his election victory led him to criminally obstruct an investigation into Russian interference in the American electoral process.That is really the heart of the matter. The President didn’t have to have knowingly participated in the crime. He covered it up because it cheapened his achievement. He wanted to be recognized as the architect of his greatest accomplishment. He wanted history to remember him as the man who had single-handedly owned the Libs. He couldn’t allow anyone to take that from him.So even though he didn’t knowingly participate in Russia’s election interference campaign, he still used the privileges of his office to cover it up because it made him look less impressive.So that, dear reader, is how one can criminally obstruct an investigation into a crime in the commission of which said obstructor never knowingly played a part.An AnalogyTo use an imperfect metaphor, let’s imagine that I am the manager of a major sports franchise. I’m from New York, so we will make it the Knicks. Now my Knicks—against all odds—make it all the way to the Finals, and we are facing the Golden State Warriors. The Warriors are the clear favorites. Everyone knows that they are going to destroy my Knicks in righteous form.But as the Finals play out, somehow, my Knicks go on a wild run, and all the calls seem to be going my way. People remark upon our luck with the referees, but there is no doubt that my Knicks are the unforeseen sensation of the season. After a close race, WE WIN THE FINAL! We are obviously ecstatic.Warriors fans all claim that the reffing was biased. They claim that the play was unfair. They claim that my team benefitted from unfair circumstances and that we hadn’t won on our own merit.At the same time, though, every sports show and magazine is repeating my cinderella story. ESPN does a segment about how I might be the archetype for a whole new generation of managers. Sports Illustrated has a cover story on how I had fundamentally changed the game. Time is considering me for Person of the Year. In short, I am basking in adulation.But one day, one of my subordinates brings a memo to my desk that changes everything. Evidence suggests that a criminal syndicate paid off both officials and members of the other team to ensure my win. The odds were so long against me that they saw the chance to make serious money on my victory.Now, to be clear, I had no idea about any of this. I was just coaching my team to the best of my ability. There was no proof that I had only won because of their influence. At the same time, no one would care. I would go down in history as the guy who had won the NBA Finals by cheating. ESPN would do a whole new series interviewing witnesses who could confirm that our win wasn’t legitimate. Sports Illustrated would do a new cover about how I had cheated. That is all anyone would remember about me, and I had never even done anything wrong.So what do I do about it? The answer should be obvious! I use what influence and funds I have to try to make sure that no one ever finds out about the cheating. I pay off everyone I can to keep the story underground. I mean, can you blame me? I had nothing to do with this rigging, and I just want to celebrate the historic victory that I accomplished. We won those Finals and no one can say that we didn’t! I won’t let anyone say otherwise!Now this is obviously an imperfect metaphor. I am not suggesting that Russia paid off either legal decision-makers or opposition candidates in a way that unfairly favored Trump’s campaign. That is not the point of this analogy. What I hope is that the reader—regardless of political leanings—will endeavor to understand the reasons by which even someone who is not fundamentally evil and reprobate might theoretically choose to engage in the obstruction of a legal investigation into criminal wrongdoing.Indeed, imperfect though my metaphor may be, I hope that I have given even Liberal readers a means of understanding that impeachable offenses needn’t necessarily be rooted in malice aforethought. I have no interest in arguing the relative merits of Donald Trump’s morality, especially as all evidence suggests that those who approve of what he does will continue to do so, as will those who oppose his actions.But, to return to the aforementioned scenario, do you think that I would be criminally culpable for the obstruction of justice? I mean, my reasons were legitimate enough, right?As it happens, however, the Law doesn’t particularly care. If you obstruct a criminal investigation, regardless of the legitimacy of your reasoning, you have indeed committed a Federal offense.This is not merely opinion. Here is the actual text of 18 U.S. Code § 1501:Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or opposes any officer of the United States, or other person duly authorized, in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal or judicial writ or process of any court of the United States, or United States magistrate judge… Shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.[2]So did the President commit a crime?Clearly.Indeed, anyone who has both read the report, and understood the nature of the laws that restrict the obstruction of justice ought to be generally clear on this point. You may feel that his reasoning was justified, but there is essentially very little reasonable doubt that the President did things which would absolutely have constituted criminal obstruction, but that the investigation didn’t view criminal implication as an option with regard to a sitting president.But why should you believe me? After all, we live in the age of fake news, don’t we? For all you know, I might just be another deceiver! If this has been your train of thought, then good. You are beginning to learn. Don’t just take people at their word, not even me.That is why I am going to conclude this answer with a series of cited quotations taken directly from the report itself. I submit them to you, dear reader, in the hope that you will grant them your sober consideration, and leave it to you to form your own version of what took place.In support of the assertion regarding the President’s motivationAccording to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked.” The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, “How could you let this happen, Jeff?” The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had “let [him] down,” contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy. Sessions recalled that the President said to him, “you were supposed to protect me,” or words to that effect. The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.” [Volume II, Page 78, DCP 290]Regarding Obstruction of JusticeLater that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn the President said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Shortly after requesting resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered. [Volume II, Page 3, DCP 215]Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russianofficials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” [Volume II, Page 4, DCP 216]On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre. [Volume II, Page 4, DCP 216](Note: attempts to obstruct justice are still criminal, even if the orders are not carried out.)On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do. [Volume II, Page 4, DCP 216]In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior adviser, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a “hero.” [Volume II, Page 5, DCP 217]In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. [Volume II, Page 5–6, DCP 217–218]During Manafort’s prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial wasdeliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.” [Volume II, Page 6, DCP 218]After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip,” contacted him directly to tell him to “stay strong,” and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President?s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes. [Volume II, Page 6, DCP 218]As a close look at the page numbers will show, the quotes immediately above are all taken from a few pages of the Executive Summary to Volume II. There is a great deal more information in the pages that follow, but I set out to make this a summary, and have already gone fairly long.I am certain that many readers who favor the President will be unlikely to see any wrongdoing whatsoever in the quoted sections, but the simple fact of the matter is that the president used his power and influence to attempt to obstruct and at times even to put an end to an investigation into criminal interference in the process of American Democracy by a foreign power. Even if he didn’t knowingly coordinate, collaborate, or collude, there is significant evidence that he tried to stop people from finding out that there had been any interference at all.That is why I would support impeachment proceedings even if it had been a Democrat who had done this, and why I believe the duty set out before the House of Representatives is clear.Thank you for reading, and I hope that you will consider the matter for yourself. I believe that those who would like to see integrity restored to American elections should put aside partisan prejudice and join hands with those across the aisle in pursuit of a common goal: that free government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.Source for all quotes not otherwise footnoted: The Mueller ReportFootnotes[1] Bingeclock, how long does it take to watch every episode of Game of Thrones?[2] 18 U.S. Code § 1501 - Assault on process server

Thanks for A2A. I was going to decline, but, on the reading the current answers they, at best, reveal only the partial truth.Whilst I hope my response will answer the question, as it is asked, I have also expanded it (a LOT!!) to counter some of the answers that have already been given. The following is therefore the WHOLE truth ... you have been warned!The process of diagnosing mental health problems is fairly similar, but not identical, to the process of diagnosing physical health problems. I know this is pedantic, but I have deliberately used the words "diagnosing mental health problems", rather than 'evaluating mental health' as is used in the question, because I want to stress that doctors don't usually assess people out of habit or curiosity - instead we actively seek health problems so that we can recommend solutions. Everything we do - from the questions we ask, to where we poke you in the tummy, to the blood tests we order - are done in an attempt to reach a diagnosis. In short, we're not usually worried about your mental state - unless you have a problem with it.How we assess mental health is intimately associated with how mental health diseases are defined. Each mental health disease gets a set of criteria. If you meet sufficient criteria then you score the diagnosis. If not, you've either got a milder form of the disorder or else a different disease is causing your symptoms.One collection of such criteria for Mental Health Disorders is the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). If we use the example of the most common mental health disease, Depression, the DSM5 (Edition 5) diagnositc criteria for 'Major Depression' is the prescence of the following symptoms, on most days of the week, for at least 2 weeks.You need to have both:Depressed moodLoss of interest or pleasureAs well as 3 of the following symptoms:Significant change in appetite and weightInsomnia or hypersomniaPsychomotor agitation or retardationFatigue or loss of energyFeelings of worthlessness or excessive guiltImpaired thinking or concentration; indecisivenessSuicidal thoughts/thoughts of deathIf you meet these criteria then you score a diagnosis of 'Major Depression'. If you just miss you could have 'Minor Depression' or you may have a different mental health disease that shares features with Depression ... such as 'Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood', 'Bipoar Disorder', 'Substance Induced Mood Disorder' , 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder', 'Post-traumatic Stress Disorder', or even 'Schizophrenia'. Each of these diseases shares criteria with depression but will have slightly different criteria that better fits your symptoms. This means we cannot just ask questions about the criteria for depression - we need to ensure you also don't have criteria for other disorders.A doctor who is assessing your mental health is therefore probing you about diagnostic criteria. To do this we use the same "tools" that we do for physical health problems - history, examination and investigations. Sometimes the patient's response to treatment can also assist with diagnosis."History" refers to the story the patient volunteers and all those questions the doctor asks you. History begins by a doctor listening to the patient's complaint, then asking questions to clarify any statements that are not clear and, lastly, by asking direct (yes or no) questions to narrow down the likely diagnoses. The history forms the major bulk of diagnosis with mental health problems - because most of the criteria require asking the patient a question.This history is not just a friendly chat - the doctor is not asking you questions because they are fascinated by you and your life story. In their head, they are thinking about a list of possible diseases that could explain your symptoms (called "differential diagnoses") and their questions are attempts to make these diagnoses more or less likely.If we return to depression - let's just suppose you volunteer that you feel "flat" and are lying awake at night unable to sleep. If the doctor suspects depression as a possibile diagnosis, it provides them with very little information if they spend a long time discussing your flat-ness. "How flat are you on a scale from 1 to 10?", "Is it like you've lifted a bag of sand a hundred times or like you've lifted an elephant once?", "Would you say you're flat like a straight line or a little bit wavy like rolling hills?". So, instead of exploring your degree of flat, they will instead fire strange questions at you that have nothing to do with what you've complained of - like whether your appetite has changed, whether you still enjoy hobbies and interests that you used to, whether you feel worthless and whether you've had any thoughts of harming yourself. These questions are to determine which criteria you do, and do not, meet.However, we don't JUST ask the criteria for depression. Could you have Bipolar Disorder ("Have there been times when you were hugely energetic and gets lots done?"), Substance Induced Mood Disorder ("How much alcohol do you drink? Do you take use recreational drugs?) or Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood ("Was there an event or stress that triggered these symptoms?").Once the doctor has gathered sufficient evidence from questioning they move onto the "examination" part of the consultation. The examination" is a search for objective clues that would make one of their differential diagnoses more or less likely. Examination clues include things like noises in your chest, a red throat, a lump, weakness in your arm. In mental health examinations (called a Mental State Exam) it is usually performed concurrently with the history - you probably won't notice the doctor examining you. When examining your mental state the doctor is looking for objective evidence that you are behaving like someone with the mental health problem that you meet criteria for. If you present with criteria that match depression - we would NOT expect you to be laughing, highly energic, talking very quickly or jumping from topic to topic. If you did then we'd start to consider alternate mental health diagnoses - Bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia for example.The third step in our diagnostic armory is investigations. In general, there are no blood tests to confirm or refute a mental health diagnosis. That said, there are physical diseases - like the notorious Hypothyroidism - that can manifest with symptoms that mimic depression. Before you commence an anti-depressant or launch into counselling, we check that your symptoms are not being driven by a physical disease.Finally, I mentioned that sometimes your response to treatment can cause us to modify the diagnosis. Starting an anti-depressant in someone with Bipolar Disorder - because we misdiagnose that person as having Major Depression - can trigger mania. Therefore, excluding Bipolar Disorder before commencing anti-depressants is important.Other answers have made mention of screening tools for mental health disorders. These are questionaires that a person can complete, on their own, to give an indication of whether a particular mental health disorder is likely to be present. There are a myriad of them - Screening Tools.There's nothing particularly amazing about these questionaires. Basically, the questions resemble the DSM5 criteria - so, if you have a high score on the questionaire it means you are likely to meet a lot of the DSM5 criteria and, therefore, likely to have the disorder ... amazing!For example, the following is the PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE (PHQ-9) screening tool for depression.Over the past 2 weeks rate yourself from not having the symptom at all (0) up to having the symptom every day (3)1. Little interest or pleasure in doing things2. Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless3. Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much4. Feeling tired or having litle energy5. Poor appetite or overeating6. Feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down7. Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television8. Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed. Or the opposite being so restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual9. Thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself or others.The astute will have noticed that these are nothing but questions, in the exact order, about the DSM5 criteria for Major Depression.However, it is important to remember that these tools are designed for screening - identifying problems in someone who hasn't volunteered them or recognised that they symptoms of a mental health disorder. They can also serve the purpose of demonstrating an objective improvement in response to treatment - to demonstrate that your counselling has improved your mental health. What they do NOT do, however, is replace the need for the history, examination and investigations as described above. You can get a high score on a screening tool for reasons other than having that diagnosis - having Bipolar Disorder instead of Depression for example.Now that I hope I've answered the question about tools for assessing mental health I would like to turn my attention to an implication made in other answers - that your Primary Care Physician isn't the place to go if you have a Mental Health problem. There have been statements that Primary Care doctors do not have time to do an adequate assessment, and instead rely upon screening tools, and even a statement that they won't know who to refer you to if you have a disorder that is beyond their expertise.However, before I leap to the defence of my colleagues in Primary Care I would like to volunteer a full and frank confession. Mental Health Care is embarassingly inadequate in almost any country you care to look at. Completely broken. $%#%ed! The system is not necessarily beyond repair but it requires major work that no politician, or taxpayer, is interested in paying for. I therefore do not want my following statements to imply, in any way, that I believe Mental Health Care is done well. My purpose of explaining the following is that I believe that there are ways for you - the powerless, individual patient - to approach this imperfect system that will increase your chances of obtaining good mental health care.I am going to begin with a rant about the current system and then a whinge about how every problem in healthcare is placed at the feet of Primary Care Physicians. However, the point of all this complaining is to, at the end, inform you about how to navigate this system to your benefit.The first fact I would like to point out is that Mental Health Care is overwhelmingly provided by Primary Care Physicians. I know this will seem incomprehensible to Psychiatrists - who believe every sad patient is passed to them - but according to their own college, 90% of mental health disorders are managed in Primary Care (rcpsych.ac.uk).Now, because Primary Care Physicians manage 90% of mental health care - and I've already admitted Mental Health Care is embarassingly poor - it is logical to conclude that Primary Care doctors are extremely poor at managing Mental Health.And, a brief look at statistics will support this argument ... rounded off, mental health statistics approximately fall into the rule of halves. 50% of people will have a mental health disorder at some point in their life. Half of those (25% of the population) will meet criteria for a mental health disorder within the next 12 months. Think about that for a second ... in the next 12 months 25% of the entire population will meet criteria for a mental health disorder!! Of the people with a current mental health disorder, half of them will have it diagnosed. And, of those who get a diagnosis, only half will receive proper treatment (taken from here).These statistics are pretty woeful ... BUT, the problem with them is with the way that they are calculated - which limits the conclusions that can be drawn. Doctors like having papers published, because it looks good on their CV, and one of the easiest ways to get a paper published is to trawl through statistics - you look up the incidence of a disease (how many new cases of a disease occur in the community each year based on a random survey (e.g. this one)) and then you trawl through Health Care statistics to see how many cases were diagnosed by Primary Health doctors. If 10% of people have symptoms of depression in the survey, and Primary Care Doctor's records indicate that only 5% of the population has been diagnosed, then obviously 5% of the population with depression are being missed.This type of "study" is done in every speciality - Cardiologists look at blood pressure and cholesterol statistics, Renal doctors look at Chronic Kidney Disease, Endocrinologists look at Diabetes and Psychiatrists evaluate Mental Illness statistics. It's a simple way to get a paper to your name without having to worry about the time and cost associated with doing actual research. And, for whatever disease you choose, there are huge numbers of people in the community walking around with a medical problem undiagnosed and undertreated. The conclusion drawn at the end of these papers is, inevitably, that the cause of the problem is that Primary Care Physicians are failing to recognise the importance of the disease, inadequately testing the community for it and improperly managing the condition when it is found.This was certainly my understanding of the world before I became a General Practitioner. When training in hospitals to become a medical specialist, every study I read showed disease wasn't being detected often enough and, when it was, it was being mismanaged. It was therefore a shock when I entered General Practice and discovered that the opposite seemed to be true!?! In my most recent location I have taken over the care of a lot of patients from a recently retired GP who, somehow, over the years has managed to accumulate a collection of extremely impressive patients. His patients on blood pressure and cholesterol medication always seem to return with blood pressure and cholesterol inside the recommended guidelines. His patients with Diabetes get their eyes and feet checked and have blood glucose levels within the target range. People turn up and request their second yearly blood tests and other recommended health screening (Pap smears and mammograms etc). And, whenever a problem is detected in these tests, they understand the importance of adding or adjusting their treatment to prevent the consequences of disease. In short, this retired GP has created a group of patients who defy every "study" on population health that I've read.This phenomenon caused me to question what I'd learned inside the hospital training system. I started to wonder whether the reason that there is so much undiagnosed and untreated disease in the population is NOT, as concluded by these studies, because Primary Care doctors and woeful at managing these diseases. Maybe, instead, it is because human beings often don't turn up for health screening and don't want to take the recommended treatments. This is not meant as a criticism or value judgement of those people - it is my firm belief that a doctor's role is merely to provide health advice and the individual has every right to follow or ignore that advice as they see fit. However, I don't think it is fair that Primary Care doctors get blamed for health statistics that result from people either not attending a doctor or choosing to ignore that doctor's advice.So, what the population studies do not bother to look at - because it is too hard and too expensive - is WHY these people are not being diagnosed and taking treatment for their condition. The person who copied and pasted these statistics into their paper did not interview a single person to ask questions. The statistics are twisted to imply that 100% of people with depression walked into their General Practitioners office and complained of the criteria for Major Depression but only 25% walked out with proper treatment. However, the statistics mean nothing of the sort. Of the 5% of the population with undiagnosed depression nobody knows whether they have actually seen a Primary Care Doctor or not, whether their doctor suggested they have mental health symptoms but the person disagreed, whether the doctor recommended treatment but they refused or whether their doctor missed their diagnosis or diagnosed them incorrectly. We have no idea what percentage of the people not receiving proper treatment for their mental disorder simply refused their doctor's sugestion of counselling or an anti-depressant and elected to try St John's Wort instead. We simply don't know.To argue that the blame for undiagnosed disease lies at the feet of Primary Care Physicians implies that their job is to march out into the community and track down every person with a medical problem, spend as long as it takes to convince that person that they have a specific diagnosis, convince that person that they MUST go onto treatment for that condition and then regularly confront and test that person to ensure their dose of medication is sufficient. Only once every single person with a disease has been found and diagnosed, AND is taking medication AND the medications is controlling the disease within recommended guidelines will these "studies" show that Primary Care Doctors are doing a good job.Until that moment arrives, these reports on the statistics of the general population will continue to lump the responsibility for improving the statistics onto the Primary Care Physician. Why? Simply because it's the cheapest option. Rather than actually do something to change the statistics - it's cheaper and easier just to blame Primary Care doctors and suggest the solution is that they work harder.If mental health disorders will affect 50% of people at some point in their lives it would be reasonable to presume that 50% of the health care budget is spent on mental health. You would expect every town to have Multidisciplenary Mental Health Units - a building for patients with a mental illness to pop in for several hours and see a Psychiatrist to adjust their medications, Nurses to give any injectible (depot) medications, a Psychologist to attend to the counselling, a Pharmacist to discuss and supply their medications and a Social Worker to offer solutions to the socioeconomic disadvantages associated with having a mental health disorder. Kind of like Diabetic Clinics that we already have - except you'd expect a lot more, because 50% of people will require this service at some time of their life. Alternatively, of course, you could save money and simply "educate" Primary Care Doctors about how badly they're managing the disease and how they need to perform the roles of all these health professionals.Given the overwhelming numbers of people suffering with mental health disorders you may also expect to see Psychiatrists and Psychologists attempting to alleviate the burden by seeing patients in 15 minute appointments. Reducing their appointment times from 1 hour to 15 minutes will quadruple the number of patients who can access quality mental health care!! Of course, Psychiatrists and Psychologists will argue that it is "impossible" to adequately assess, diagnose and recommend treatment for mental health disorders in less than one hour - but this doesn't prevent them from expecting Primary Care Physicians do it.The argument may be that Primary Care Physicians need to start offering longer appointments to cater for mental health problems. This would no doubt increase the detection of mental health disorders, give us more time to arrive at the exact diagnosis and more adequately discuss and provide treatment. I have actually worked with a General Practitioner who does this exact thing - she joined a practice I used to work at. She has an interest, and extra training, in mental health disorders and would offer 1 hour appointments for mental health consulations. After one week we noticed she was fully booked with nothing other than mental health consultations - 4 patients in the morning and 4 patients in the afternoon. The wait for these hour long appointments gradually lengthened - out to 2 months by the time I left. What this meant was that every issue that was not mental health related for "her" patients needed to be sorted out by another doctor at the practice. The reason she had joined a group practice was to surround herself with Primary Care doctors who could provide her patients with Primary Care whilst she focused on counselling. In my humble opinion, this defeats the purpose of becoming a Primary Care Physician. I enjoy the variety of catering to a wide variety of health care needs for my patients. I actually have a degree in Psychology, and have worked as a counsellor, so if I wanted to be a Psychologist or Psychiatrist I would have become one. Instead, when one of my patients needs counselling or Psychiatric evaluation I refer them to someone else to provide this service so that I am able to offer Primary Care services to other patients.In conclusion, I would urge people away from the argument that the blame for the current state of Mental Health Care lies with Primary Care Physicians or that the solution is as simple as Primary Care Physicians "doing Mental Health better". I would also stress - the point of my rant - that if you want treatment for your mental health problems then your Primary Care doctor is the place to start. The poor statistics do not indicate that your doctor is mismanaging 75% of their patients with mental health complaints.Now, with that rant out of the way I'll now turn my attention onto how, as a powerless, health-care consumer, you can navigate this substandard system to improve your own Mental Health Care.My first suggestion is that you, right now, open your mind to the possibility that you could suffer with a Mental Health disorder - maybe you're not at the moment - but "one day". You've got a 50/50 chance. A flip of a coin. The reason for this plea is because it is extremely disheartening to see a patient who meets all criteria for a Mental Health disorder but who refuses to accept the diagnosis. This usually results in an ongoing futile search for physical explanations or, at the very least, the rejection of treatments that could help with their symptoms. If your doctor suggests a mental health problem could be explaining your symptoms please do not take this as a sign that we don't believe your symptoms, that it's "all in your head" or that we're saying you're inventing or imagining the symptoms.Take another look at the DSM5 criteria for depression - there are a lot of physical symptoms in there (tiredness, difficulty concentrating, problems with sleep, loss of appetite and weight, physically slowing down). Please try to accept the possibility that psychological diseases can cause physical symptoms.Notice also that there's nothing in the criteria for depression that says you have to "feel sad" or be "crying all the time". Again, people refuse to consider that they could have depression because "I'm not sad. I'm just tired and can't be bothered doing things" or they'll argue they "have nothing to be depressed about" - which is the whole point of depression.The good news, if you do happen to fall into half the population who will suffer with a Mental Health disorder, is that you can be reassured that we do have treatments that actually help. So, if you attend your Primary Care doctor with a Mental Health problem, and are open to receiving treatment, there is a good chance we can help. For depression, the options generally start with a choice between either counselling or antidepressant medications - that offer largely similar response rates (see here) - and there is even some evidence that whichever one you prefer is more likely to be successful for you. The morale of the story is - if you suffer with a Mental Health Disorder there is something that your doctor will be able to do to assist.So, let's say you are worried about your Mental Health and decide to do something about it. Given that the statistics say that only 25% of people with a Mental Health Disorder are receiving proper treatment, then what can you do to get into that 25%? And, try to remember that this 25% statistic does not mean that if you attend your Primary Care Physician to discuss your mental health you only have a 25% chance of being treated properly. It could mean that 75% of people are yet to talk to their doctor about their mental health.The problem with mental health is that it gets hidden. Psychological symptoms carry stigma in society, humans generally have difficulty opening up about their emotions and admitting they are struggling with life. Also, people often don't like being told that a physical symptom is being caused by a Psychiatric disease.Because psychological symptoms can be difficult to talk about, many people with mental health conditions present to their General Practitioner complaining about a physical symptom - tiredness or insomnia for example - rather than admitting they're worried about depression. Unfortunately, there are a myriad of both physical and psychological causes for tiredness and insomnia so having to rule out all of the physical causes costs a lot of time that could be devoted to the Psychological.Often people will ask for a consultation for something completedly unrelated - the pain in their arthritic knee - and only unleash the real reason they came in after the doctor has performed a history and examination, and discussed treatment options, for the knee pain. We are trained to try and drag every reason for the consultation from you at the beginning but, nevertheless, it occurs on an almost daily basis and dooms the remaining appointments to run late. It is also a recipe for being asked to come back on another day, for a longer appointment, to give us adequate time to deal with the mental health problem properly.The above is not meant as criticism of people who do raise mental health concerns in this way - it is brave of them to raise the problem at all. However, imagine how far ahead you would be if you walked into your doctor's office and said "I'm worried I may have depression".So the first piece of advice is - if you are worried about your mental health then be brave, make an appointment to discuss it and raise your concern as the reason for the appointment. You will already be miles ahead of most people suffering with a mental health problem.Then, try to understand that a proper evaluation of your mental health is going to take time. To get an accurate diagnosis, and a measure of the severity of your disease, we need to ask a lot of questions. Experts in the field - Psychiatrists and Psychologists - refuse to attempt it in less than an hour so why expect a General Practitioner to be more efficient.General Practitioners sell appointments in 15 (sometimes 10 or 20 minute) slots - and we are quite happy to sell you more than one. There is no rule that says you can only see your doctor for 15 minutes - we frequently sell double appointments. If you are attending for a mental health complaint then tell the receptionist you'll need a double appointment. Expect also, that you will need to return for another double appointment, to complete the assessment. Again, imagine how far ahead you will be than the patient who tried to squeeze their depression in after having their painful knee properly sorted.I mentioned in the beginning that the diagnosis of mental health diseases resembles, but is not identical to, physical diseases. One of the big differences is that the diagnosis of mental health relies far more heavily on the history - you need to be in the room for us to ask you questions. Physical problems have a natural interuption to the consultation - history and examination during the first consultation, then we send you away to have some blood tests or X-rays to confirm our diagnostic suspicions, and then you return to discuss the diagnosis and management. Two fifteen minute consultations and problem solved.Mental health problems don't have tests to do to confirm the diagnosis, so the initial consultation is far more prolonged. The diagnosis depends on the questions. There will be an interuption between consultations - to get some basic blood tests to prove your symptoms are not related to a physical disease - so you should still expect to be asked to return for a second visit to discuss the same issue.My final suggestion is to have a think about what treatment you would consider if the doctor agreed you meet criteria for a mental health disorder. Broadly this will fall into 'talking to someone' or 'taking a pill'. People will often have a strong preference one way or another and, as I said previously, for a lot of mental health disorders (with exceptions) there's no strong evidence that one choice is vastly superior to another - but both are better than doing nothing or self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. If you have no interest in either then really there is little point seeing your Primary Care doctor and you will continue to turn up in the statistics of the people "missed by Primary Care doctors".I will conclude with a short spiel about counselling - firstly, because it's something I tell to my patients but, secondly, it addresses a previous answer that suggested "you're on your own" if your particular disorder is beyond the expertise of your Primary Care doctor.The first point, that I make to my patients, is that modern counselling (at least the types that have evidence that they work) isn't like the couch sessions that you see in the movies. The counsellor doesn't passively listen to you cry about how your mother never loved you. Counselling is far more directive and provides you with strategies and techniques that you employ in everyday life to alter the way you experience and react to the world. It is an active rather than passive experience and is certainly not just "getting your problems off your chest".My second point is that a large part of the success of counselling depends on what is called the "therapeutic relationship" between the counsellor and patient. Basically, the counsellor needs to be someone you feel comfortable divulging your worries to and someone you respect enough to listen to their advice. If you dislike your counsellor it doesn't matter how good they are at applying Psychological techniques, you will not benefit from the therapy. For this reason I ask ALL of my patients to be actively involved in the choice of a counsellor. Between appointments 1 and 2 I provide them with resources about local counsellors and ask them to pick one that seems reasonable to them. This is not because I have no idea about where to refer challenging cases - but merely because the patient is more likely than I am to select someone with which they will develop a therapeutic relationship. If you cannot make a decision then, be assured, the doctor will make one for you.It is also worth noting that, in a lot of countries, you don't need a doctor's permission or referral to see a Psychologist. If you're worried about mental health symptoms, would prefer counselling over medication, and locate a counsellor that you like the look of, it is perfectly reasonable to take yourself off to talk to them instead of a doctor. Like Primary Care doctors, they will refer you on if they feel your diagnosis is beyond their expertise.And that's it ...Accept the possibility that you too, like every second person, could suffer with a mental illness.Don't interpret the doctor's suggestion of a mental health diagnosis as a personal attack or as minimising your symptoms.Be bold in voicing your concerns about your mental health. Do your best to avoid hiding them behind a "proper reason" for seeing a doctor. Primary Care doctors look after a lot (and most) mental health problems and it is refreshing, and much easier, when the problem is volunteered from the onset.Grant your doctor the luxury of sufficient time to devote to a proper mental health assessment - by booking a double appointment and understanding you'll need to be seen at least twice.Have a think about what treatments you'd be willing to try and those you wouldn't.For advanced patients - if you are interested in counselling you could even have a look around at local counsellors to see if any sound suitable for you.Can I please close by highlighting that my suggestions are not a guarantee that you will receive good care - they are merely things that a lot of people DON'T do and things that would increase your chance of being in the 25% of people receiving proper treatment.Every time I post an answer on ways patients can improve the way they interact with the health care jugganaut (things that I, and my family, do when utilising the same health care services) I inevitably receive personal stories about individual patients and doctors and how my suggestions didn't work despite them doing everything I suggested.For the record, I acknowledge that some people will have had very bad experiences with their mental health treatment despite following all of the above recommendations. I accept that there are bad doctors. I acknowledge the current system is terrible. I empathise and apologise that you have had such a terrible experience. I sincerely hope that by seeking a new doctor you will find better care. And I do not require convincing with evidence from your particular circumstances. Thanks.

"Putting Sachin Tendulkar's latest feat in a strictly cricketing context would not be fair to the sportsman. His achievements in the world of cricket need to be seen on a par with efforts in any other field - science, art, literature, etc - to push the frontiers of human excellence." -- Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper"I am one of those fortune people who have seen Bradman and Tendulkar bat in my lifetime and in my opinion Tendulkar is the best batsman I have seen in my life." -- Hanif Mohammed"Irrespective of the score, whenever Sachin Tendulkar comes to bat he is under pressure. The pressure comes from all those people who look up to him, who pray that he gets a century, who cheer like India has already won when he comes in to bat, and who silently troop out of the stands once he gets out. When a visiting team comes to India, they know whom the Indians look up to. While they love watching India play, there is no doubt that Tendulkar is the player they love watching most. There is a buzz when he comes in to bat and if he fails, the crowd goes quiet for the rest of the game." -- Mark Waugh"Test cricket is bloody hard work, especially when you've got Sachin batting with what looks like a three-metre-wide bat." -- Michael Hussey"Don't bowl him bad balls, he hits the good ones for fours." -- Michael Kasprowicz"The more I see him, the more I want to see him." -- Mohammad Azharuddin"There is no shame losing to such a great player." -- Steve Waugh"I didn’t see Don but to me, in all my years associated with the game, I haven’t seen a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar."-- Viv Richards"Tujhe pata hai tune kiska catch chhoda hai?" (Hindi: "तुझे पता है तूने किसका कैच छोड़ा है?"; Translation: Do you know whose catch you've dropped?) -- Wasim Akram to Abdul Razzaq, when the latter dropped Tendulkar's catch in 2003 World Cup."The joy he brings to the millions of his countrymen, the grace with which he handles all the adulation and the expectations and his innate humility -all make for a one-in-a-billion individual" -- Glenn McGrath"Question: Who do you think as most important celebrity?Shahrukh: There was a big party where stars from Bollywood and cricket were invited. Suddenly, there was a big noise, all wanted to see approaching Amitabh Bachchan​. Then Sachin entered the hall and Amitabh was leading the queue to get a grab of the genius!!!" -- Shahrukh Khan (from an interview)"Sachin Tendulkar has often reminded me of a veteran army colonel who has many medals on his chest to show how he has conquered bowlers all over the world" -- Allan Donald"I was bowling to Sachin and he hit me for two fours in a row. One from point and the other in between point and gully. That was the last two balls of the over and the over after that we (South Africa) took a wicket and during the group meeting i told Jonty (Rhodes) to be alert and i know a way to pin Sachin. And i delivered the first ball of my next over and it was a fuller length delivery outside off stump. And i shouted catch. To my astonishment the ball was hit to the cover boundary. Such was the brilliance of Sachin.His reflex time is the best I have ever seen. Its like 1/20th of a sec.To get his wicket better not prepare. Atleast you wont regret if he hits you for boundaries." -- Allan Donald"On a train from Shimla to Delhi, there was a halt in one of the stations.The train stopped by for few minutes as usual. Sachin was nearing century, batting on 98. The passengers, railway officials, everyone on the train waited for Sachin to complete the century.This genius can stop time in India!" -- Peter Rebouck, Aussie journalist"Sachin cannot cheat. He is to cricket what (Mahatma) Gandhiji was to politics. It's clear discrimination." -- NKP Salve, former Union Minister of India (This was when he was accused of ball tampering)"Commit all your crimes when Sachin is batting. They will go unnoticed because even the Lord is watching." -- A placard at the SCG when Sachin Tendulkar was on his way to a magnificent century"I had to remind Gary Kristen often that he was in the covers to field against Sachin not to applaud him" -- Hansie Cronje"You have to decide for yourself whether you're bowling well or not. He's going to hit you for fours and sixes anyway." -- Shane WarneDuring the Bangalore Test, frustrated, Michael Kasprowicz went to Dennis Lillee and asked, "Mate, do you see any weaknesses?" Lillee replied, "No Michael, as long as you walk off with your pride that's all you can do.""For every ball Sachin has two shots in his mind. And he gets out when he plays the third one". -- Harsha Bhogle"The pressure on me is nothing compared to Sachin Tendulkar.Sachin,like God,must never fail.The crowd always expects him to succeed and it is too much pressure on him.But,he rarely disappoints them" -- Mark Waugh"When Tendulkar goes out to bat, it is beyond chaos - it's a frantic appeal by a nation to one man." -- Mathew Hayden""You have to watch India in India truly to appreciate the pressure that Sachin Tendulkar is under every time he bats. Outside grounds, people wait until he goes in before paying to enter. They seem to want a wicket to fall even though it is their own side that will suffer. This is cricket as Sachin has known it since the age of 16. He grew up under incredible weight of expectation and never buckled once – not under poor umpiring decisions or anything else. I place him very slightly ahead of Lara because I found him slightly tougher mentally." -- Shane Warne"Technically, you can't fault Sachin. Seam or spin, fast or slow nothing is a problem." -- Geoffrey Boycott"We have had champions, we have had legends, but we have never had another Sachin Tendulkar and we never will." -- Time Magazine"The silence in an Indian cricket stadium when he gets out is said to be the loudest in the world." -- Some Article"When Sachin plays, big-city roads are easy and trains and buses ply empty at rush hour and the markets take a beating.When Sachin plays, grandmothers who know next to nothing about the game forget knitting and resting and medicines and pray to their gods as they sit frozen, staring nervously at their television screen.When Sachin plays, busy, ambitious executives ignore their calls and cancel their appointments and avoid their clients and miss their deadlines and put their careers on hold.When Sachin plays, college common rooms are dense and tense and hushed as an entire generation sits on pins and needles.When Sachin plays, school-yards are silent and playgrounds are deserted because those who normally make such a racket imitating their hero are all too busy watching him make batting look so ridiculously easy.When Sachin plays, fathers who want the news and daughters and mothers who always want soft stuff and brothers who fight for action, for once all agree on what to watch.When Sachin plays, bowlers and fielders and opposing captains feel their impotence and inadequacy like at no other time and curse themselves and wonder what they can do, if anything, to end the shame, the nightmare, the humiliation.When Sachin plays, commentators and experts run out of adjectives and expressions of wonder and comparisons.When Sachin plays, lay spectators have no need for words at all and just jump and scream and whistle and clap and hug each other and cry and wave their flags and banners and thank their lucky stars for being there.When Sachin plays, India forgets its differences and divisions and teeters between tensions and exhilaration and breaths and laughs and cries as one, as its heart fills with pride and joy and patriotism.WHEN SACHIN PLAYS, ALL ELSE IS IRRELEVANT" -- Adidas Print CommercialAs long ago as 1998, the Bombay poet C. P. Surendran wrote:"Batsmen walk out into the middle alone. Not Tendulkar. Every time Tendulkar walks to the crease, a whole nation, tatters and all, marches with him to the battle arena. A pauper people pleading for relief, remission from the lifelong anxiety of being Indian, by joining in spirit their visored saviour.""You can't contain Sachin's deeds in a statistical frame. He brings unstinted joy to the art of batting. Statistics will happen because cricket is about runs and wickets. But how can you evaluate Sachin's contributions by just counting the number of runs he has scored. To me, he best symbolises the heights an individual can rise to dominate a team sport. Words can never capture the beauty of Sachin's cricket." -- Kapil Dev"I have played with him long enough to understand his approach but I am amazed at the man's zeal. He wants to be perfect always. His humility is amazing. I have seen Sachin carry drinks for the juniormost, much to the embarrassment of the youngster. His discipline is infectious. For Mumbai nets, he comes in the Mumbai training gear. He would never don an India cap or T-shirt for a Mumbai match. He will also not allow anyone to carry his cricket coffin." -- Pravin Amre, (his coach at Mumbai)"There's no better sight on the cricket field than watch Tendulkar bat." -- Harsha Bhogle"Sachin Tendulkar! If he isn't the best player in the world, I want to see the best player in the world". -- Rev David Shepherd"I never get tired during umpiring whenever sachin is on crease." -- Rudy Kortzen"If sachin plays well... India sleeps well." -- Harsha bhogle"In the last session in Nagpur, when the Indian chase was still on, Tendulkar hit a reverse sweep, an orthodox sweep and a lofted cover drive to (Ian) Blackwell. They were all exquisite cricket shots. To play those shots deliberately in such quick succession, off almost similar deliveries, was genius. That was a little jewel, just those 3-4 minutes. "It reminds you how very few people are special. It was a case of great thinking and good technique." -- David Gower"Sachin was so focused. He never looked like getting out. He was batting with single-minded devotion. It was truly remarkable. It was a lesson." -- Martina Navratilova, Tennis legend joins the Sachin Tendulkar fan club after watching him bat at Sydney.P.S. I admit, I got carried away by all these great quotes for our Legend!