![]() When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined. Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates. McDaniel published a letter in The New York Times in which she offered her opinion and interpretation of the current Ethics Code: In 2016, in response to the New York Times article "Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?", American Psychological Association President Susan H. Instead, the APA suggests that various statements made in different parts of its Ethics Code would apply to cases of the diagnosis of a public figure. The APA Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association (a different organization than the American Psychiatric Association) does not have a similar rule explicitly defined in its code of ethics. ![]() The prohibition, or the second part of 7.3, is often taken out of context of the public health obligations of Section 7 and the first part of 7.3: Similar ethical codes in different organizations American Psychological Association 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. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. 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. Section 7, which appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973 and is still in effect as of 2018, says:Ī physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health. Goldwater sued magazine editor Ralph Ginzburg and managing editor Warren Boroson, and in Goldwater v. The magazine polled psychiatrists about Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president. This title played on the title of US Senator Barry Goldwater's bestseller The Conscience of a Conservative. ![]() The issue arose in 1964 when Fact magazine published "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater". It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. Likely costing Barry Goldwater a large number of potential votes, this practice was later deemed unethical by the APA. ![]() The original piece in Fact magazine which prompted the introduction of the Goldwater rule.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |