Goldwater rule

The original piece in Fact magazine which prompted the introduction of the Goldwater rule. Likely costing Barry Goldwater a large number of potential votes, this practice was later deemed unethical by the APA.

Goldwater Rule refers to a specific ethical guideline adopted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973. This rule is named after Senator Barry Goldwater, who was the subject of a controversial 1964 article in Fact magazine, where psychiatrists openly diagnosed him with various mental illnesses without ever having personally examined him. The Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.

Background

The controversy surrounding the Fact magazine article, which was titled "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater," led to a defamation lawsuit by Goldwater against the magazine. Goldwater won the lawsuit, and the incident raised significant concerns about the ethics of psychiatrists offering professional opinions on individuals based on their public behaviors without a formal examination. In response to this incident and the broader implications for the profession, the APA introduced the Goldwater Rule as part of its ethical guidelines.

Content of the Goldwater Rule

The Goldwater Rule is codified in Section 7.3 of the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. The rule states: "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."

Implications and Controversies

The Goldwater Rule has been a subject of debate within the psychiatric community and the broader public. Supporters argue that the rule upholds the integrity of the profession and protects individuals from potentially harmful and unfounded public diagnoses. Critics, however, contend that the rule restricts psychiatrists from contributing valuable insights to public discussions about the mental fitness of public figures, especially those in positions of significant power and influence, such as politicians.

In recent years, the debate over the Goldwater Rule has intensified, particularly in the context of political figures and the increasing visibility of mental health issues in the public sphere. Some psychiatrists argue for a reevaluation of the rule, suggesting that there are circumstances under which it is both ethical and necessary for mental health professionals to discuss the psychological characteristics of public figures, especially when those characteristics may pose a risk to public safety or well-being.

See Also

• American Psychiatric Association
• Ethics in Psychiatry
• Barry Goldwater
• Mental Health