As reported recently in the Huffington Post, Earlier this month, the American Psychoanalytic Association sent an email to its members encouraging them to offer analysis on behavior among those in the public eye if they feel inclined to do so. The APA maintains that it is unethical to do so.
The “Goldwater Rule:”
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.”
Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry
Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule.”
The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Factmagazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.
While there was no formal policy in place at the time that survey was published, the ethical implications of the Goldwater survey, in which some responding doctors even issued specific diagnoses without ever having examined him personally, became immediately clear. This large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry.