This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
APA reaffirms ethics of Goldwater Rule
The APA recently reaffirmed its support for the Goldwater Rule, which indicates member psychiatrists should not provide professional opinions about the mental state of individuals they have not personally treated.
The Goldwater Rule was established following the 1964 Presidential election, in which Fact magazine published a survey that asked 12,356 psychiatrists whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was mentally fit to be president.
Of the 2,417 psychiatrists who responded, 1,189 reported Goldwater was unfit to serve.
Goldwater later sued the magazine, which was found liable for damages.
“It was unethical and irresponsible back in 1964 to offer professional opinions on people who were not properly evaluated and it is unethical and irresponsible today,” APA President Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “In the past year, we have received numerous inquiries from member psychiatrists, the press and the public about the Goldwater Rule. We decided to clarify the ethical underpinnings of the principle and answer some of the common questions raised by our members. APA continues to support these ethical principles.”
The APA Ethics Committee issued an opinion clarifying ethical principle and answering recently posed questions. They explained that offering a professional opinion or diagnosis of an individual that has not been thoroughly evaluated damages clinician integrity and could stigmatize individuals with mental illness.
Further, publicly providing a professional opinion of an individual without consent violates the principle that psychiatric evaluation occurs with consent or authorization.