Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

American Psychoanalytic Association Frees Members from 'Goldwater Rule'

posted by martyb on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the call-a-spade-a-spade dept.

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

As President Donald Trump continues to behave bizarrely and erratically--attacking his own attorney general, launching into a political tirade during a speech to Boy Scouts, bringing his 11-year-old son into the burgeoning Russia controversy--a professional association of psychoanalysts is telling its members to drop the so-called Goldwater Rule and comment publicly on the president's state of mind if they find reason to do so.

The Goldwater Rule was formally included in the American Psychiatric Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics" following the 1964 presidential campaign, during which a magazine editor was sued for running an article in which mental health professionals gave their opinions on [Republican] presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's psychiatric state. The rule deems public comments by psychiatrists on the mental health of public officials without consent "unethical".

In a recent email to its 3,500 members, the American Psychoanalytic Association "told its members they should not feel bound by" the Goldwater Rule, which some have characterized as a "gag rule", STAT's Sharon Begley reports.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
American Psychoanalytic Association Frees Members from 'Goldwater Rule' | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 70 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:57AM (6 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:57AM (#545056) Journal
    They did not free members from the Goldwater Rule. The rule still applies, they are not allowed to diagnose anyone that they have not had as a patient in a clinical setting. They are; however, allowed to make public statements based on their expertise that are not diagnoses: for example, it's fine for them to say 'based on the behaviour that I've observed, Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist,' but that is not a diagnosis and should not be treated as one.
    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tonyPick on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:45AM (2 children)

    by tonyPick (1237) on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:45AM (#545077) Homepage Journal

    They are; however, allowed to make public statements based on their expertise that are not diagnoses

    Uh. That's what the goldwater rule prohibits, and is being repealed AIUI? TFA:

    The rule states that it is unethical to offer a professional opinion about a public figure’s mental health....

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:02PM (1 child)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:02PM (#545142) Journal
      TFA that you quoted that from seems to be written by someone who skim-read another article about the actual announcement. The announcement that they sent out explicitly stated that they were not freeing members from the Goldwater Rule, but that they were clarifying its meaning.
      --
      sudo mod me up

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:25PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:25PM (#545160) Journal
        Except of course, they are freeing members from that part of the Goldwater Rule. Maybe it's only a partial freeing with some residual of the Goldwater Rule still in place, but the AC's point remains. And let us keep in mind that it's your words now that are stating that they are freeing members from this aspect of the Goldwater Rule.

        They are; however, allowed to make public statements based on their expertise that are not diagnoses: for example, it's fine for them to say 'based on the behaviour that I've observed, Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist,' but that is not a diagnosis and should not be treated as one.

        The public will totally dig that distinction.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:48AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:48AM (#545079)

    it's fine for them to say 'based on the behaviour that I've observed, Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist,'

    "while Bill Clinton was a psychopath and Hillary Clinton is a narcissist with co-morbid sociopathy."

    It's not as if you need training or a clinical setting to make theses diagnoses. The question is, what are we going to do about these dangerous pathologies at the wider, societal level?

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by c0lo on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:46PM (#545164) Journal

      The question is, what are we going to do about these dangerous pathologies at the wider, societal level?

      Kill them, kill them all.
      No, not the pathological cases, you silly... the wider society needs cleansing.

      (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:15PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:15PM (#545176) Journal

        Wrong answer. The correct answer is, "We'll vote them into high office!"