Psychiatrists breaking rule against politicizing their practice adopted after attacks on previous GOP nominee
A growing number of psychiatrists are using their credentials and licenses to diagnose Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
And that has the rest of their field furious over what is a blatant violation of ethic rules which were adopted after rogue psychiatrists had colluded with Democrats to falsely slime a previous Republican presidential nominee.
Fox News reports:
Marina Oquendo, the president of the association, wrote this week that members should not comment on the mental state of anyone whom they haven’t personally evaluated, including presidential candidates.
“We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a presidential candidate,” Oquendo said. “I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined…
… The prohibition comes from the Goldwater Rule, created in 1973 after more than 1,000 psychiatrists who had never met with GOP presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater said he was unfit to serve as president.
“Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical,” Oquendo wrote. “I encourage you all to read the full text of the rule … and keep it in mind during this election cycle, and other events of similarly intense public interest.”
The “Goldwater Rule” was adopted after “Fact” magazine released an article titled “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.”
The article claimed it had interviewed over 1,000 psychiatrists, all of whom had diagnosed Goldwater with mental illness.
In reality, the magazine had mailed an unscientific questionnaire to 12,356 people on a psychiatrists’ mailing list.
They got back only 2,417 responses with only 1,189, a minority, describing Goldwater in negative terms.
None of the respondents to the survey had ever examined Goldwater, and responses referring to Goldwater with terms like “narcissistic” where then characterized as mental illness.
The article, however, made it appear as though psychiatrists had examined Goldwater and had almost unanimously described him as dangerously mentally ill.
It was an astonishing breach of both journalistic and medical ethics.
Goldwater sued the magazine for libel after the election, winning a 1969 landmark decision against them.
The American Psychiatric Association adopted the “Goldwater rule” five years later, barring members from publicly commenting on the mental health of political candidates they have not personally examined.
Are psychiatrists willing to violate their own ethics to rig an election – again?