Posted on 01/06/2018 7:25:14 AM PST by Eddie01
The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics[1] that states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined[further explanation needed] in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3][4]
The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater".[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[6][7] The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) in damages.[3]
Section 7, which appeared in the first edition of the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973 and is still in effect as of 2017,[8] says:
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.[1]
The APA Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, a different organization than the American Psychiatric Association, also supports a similar rule. In 2016, in response to the New York Times article "Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?", American Psychological Association President Susan H. McDaniel published a letter in The New York Times in which she stated:
Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates.
When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.[9]
Violated here recently:
Yale psychiatry professor 'warns Congress that President Trump's mental health is "unraveling" at a meeting of lawmakers including a Republican senator
The Joy Bahar's, Steyer's, et. al. are belcowning themselves at break neck speed.
Simply beat them mercilessly with the "Goldwater Rule", challenge their qualifications and enjoy the FAIL.
Ethics? What ethics?
Ethics? What ethics?
Show me a psychiatrist and I’ll show you someone with more issues than every newsstand in Times Square, Grand Central, JFK, O Hare, LAX, and Heathrow combined. The dirty little secret is that most people who either major in psych or are out in the field are there to try and figure out why they themselves are so screwed up in the head.
Everyone knows that psychiatrists who diagnose President Trump without actually examining him are violent homicidal pedophile serial killers.
I know right!? /justasbadastheyare
Well, being that I am not a psychiatrist, I can say in my unprofessional opinion that Barry Obama suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder and never should have been a Senator let alone the President of the United States.
And that is perfectly within the bounds of medical ethics.
Poor Barry.
What’s old is new again.
Trump aint havin any
Perot flinched too
Amen
Sure. There is a mountain of evidence.
Right.
Another line of attack is:
“If your willing to diagnose President Trump as unstable having never interviewed him.”
“Well I just have to ask then, how many times have you revealed personal mental health evaluations of patients you HAVE interviewed?
Especially females. Geez. Never date a psych major.
Especially females. Geez. Never date a psych major.
Especially females. Geez. Never date a psych major.
Psychiatry is, at best, a pseudoscience.
“Diagnoses” are based on subjective impressions of symptoms reported/exhibited by “patients.”
In the early 70’s, David Rosenhan and his associates demonstrated how easy it was for a completely normal individual to be evaluated as schizophrenic and admitted to a mental hospital.
That anyone attaches any credibility to psychiatry after that is a wonder.
Sure, but it's worth no more than the opinion of anybody else -- maybe worth a lot less.
The "Goldwater Rule" was a good one -- not just for mental health professionals, but for everybody.
When conservatives objected to psychoanalysts labeling Goldwater crazy, they were right.
When everybody started throwing around diagnoses of people they'd never met, they were wrong.
I agree.
Everybody want to get in front of the camera and have the public saying “Hey, he’s right. That guy is nuts.”
And the press is on the phone to any doc in the phone book saying; come get your 15 minutes of fame all you have to do is say the president is a loon and spout some psycho jargon to support your opinion. Oh, and make it convincing.
Eventually the press finds someone that will do it and the professional associations smile and look the other way. Hey, that guy pays his association dues regularly every January.
Professional ethics are only as good as the community that enforces them.
We have no borders because we don’t enforce them. Same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.