Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts
  • AAPL Login

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
  • AAPL Login
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Article CommentaryAnalysis and Commentary

The Ethics of APA's Goldwater Rule

Jerome Kroll and Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2016, 44 (2) 226-235;
Jerome Kroll
Dr. Kroll is Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus and Chief Psychiatrist at the Community University Health Care Clinic of the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis MN. Dr. Pouncey is an independent scholar in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Pouncey
Dr. Kroll is Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus and Chief Psychiatrist at the Community University Health Care Clinic of the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis MN. Dr. Pouncey is an independent scholar in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Section 7.3 of the code of ethics of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) cautions psychiatrists against making public statements about public figures whom they have not formally evaluated. The APA's concern is to safeguard the public perception of psychiatry as a scientific and credible profession. The ethic is that diagnostic terminology and theory should not be used for speculative or ad hominem attacks that promote the interests of the individual physician or for political and ideological causes. However, the Goldwater Rule presents conflicting problems. These include the right to speak one's conscience regarding concerns about the psychological stability of high office holders and competing considerations regarding one's role as a private citizen versus that as a professional figure. Furthermore, the APA's proscription on diagnosis without formal interview can be questioned, since third-party payers, expert witnesses in law cases, and historical psychobiographers make diagnoses without conducting formal interviews. Some third-party assessments are reckless, but do not negate legitimate reasons for providing thoughtful education to the public and voicing psychiatric concerns as acts of conscience. We conclude that the Goldwater Rule was an excessive organizational response to what was clearly an inflammatory and embarrassing moment for American psychiatry.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2016 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 44 (2)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 44, Issue 2
1 Jun 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Ethics of APA's Goldwater Rule
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
Citation Tools
The Ethics of APA's Goldwater Rule
Jerome Kroll, Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2016, 44 (2) 226-235;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The Ethics of APA's Goldwater Rule
Jerome Kroll, Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2016, 44 (2) 226-235;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Psychiatry's Response to Public Embarrassment
    • The APA's Position on the Goldwater Rule
    • Rethinking the APA Position
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mental Condition Requirement in Competency to Stand Trial Assessments
  • Sexsomnia as a Defense in Repeated Sex Crimes
  • Understanding Tattoos in Medicolegal Assessments
Show more Analysis and Commentary

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2018 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law