Difference between revisions of "Goldwater Rule"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 5: Line 5:
 
:2.  Offering a professional opinion on an individual that a psychiatrist has not examined is a departure from established methods of examination, which require careful study of medical history and first-hand examination of the patient. Such behavior compromises both the integrity of the psychiatrist and the profession.
 
:2.  Offering a professional opinion on an individual that a psychiatrist has not examined is a departure from established methods of examination, which require careful study of medical history and first-hand examination of the patient. Such behavior compromises both the integrity of the psychiatrist and the profession.
 
:3.  When psychiatrists offer medical opinions about an individual they have not examined, they have the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness.
 
:3.  When psychiatrists offer medical opinions about an individual they have not examined, they have the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness.
 +
 +
== American Psychoanalytic Association said its members can ignore the Goldwater rule ==
 +
 +
Business Insider reports:
 +
{{Cquote|A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a long-standing rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president.
 +
 +
The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents the first significant crack in the profession's decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians' behavior.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/major-psychiatry-group-says-members-can-discuss-trump-mental-health-2017-7?r=UK&IR=T A major psychiatry group has said its members can defy a long-standing rule and discuss Trump's mental health], ''Business Insider''</ref>
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==

Revision as of 20:21, July 26, 2017

The Goldwater Rule is an ethical standard in psychiatry and psychology that forbids someone in those professions from expressing a mental health opinion about any individual, such as a candidate for president, in the absence of conducting a thorough private mental examination of the person and obtaining his fully informed consent before speaking to others about it. The rule is named after Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) reaffirmed its commitment to this ethical standard in March 2017, for the following reasons provided by the President of APA:[1]

1. When a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc. of a public figure without consent, that psychiatrist has violated the principle that psychiatric evaluations be conducted with consent or authorization.
2. Offering a professional opinion on an individual that a psychiatrist has not examined is a departure from established methods of examination, which require careful study of medical history and first-hand examination of the patient. Such behavior compromises both the integrity of the psychiatrist and the profession.
3. When psychiatrists offer medical opinions about an individual they have not examined, they have the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness.

American Psychoanalytic Association said its members can ignore the Goldwater rule

Business Insider reports: {{Cquote|A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a long-standing rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president.

The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents the first significant crack in the profession's decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians' behavior.[2]

References