User login
Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”1
Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”2 that harms the public image of psychiatry.3 Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”4 occupying the most powerful position on earth.
Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.5 Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.6
Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?
Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.7 Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.
Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.
When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.8
The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.9
Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.10 Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?
The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.
The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,11 in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.
Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.
2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.
3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.
4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.
5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).
6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.
7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.
8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.
9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.
10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.
11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.
Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”1
Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”2 that harms the public image of psychiatry.3 Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”4 occupying the most powerful position on earth.
Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.5 Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.6
Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?
Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.7 Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.
Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.
When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.8
The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.9
Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.10 Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?
The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.
The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,11 in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.
Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.
2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.
3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.
4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.
5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).
6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.
7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.
8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.
9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.
10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.
11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.
Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”1
Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”2 that harms the public image of psychiatry.3 Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”4 occupying the most powerful position on earth.
Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.5 Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.6
Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?
Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.7 Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.
Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.
When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.8
The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.9
Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.10 Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?
The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.
The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,11 in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.
Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.
2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.
3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.
4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.
5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).
6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.
7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.
8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.
9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.
10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.
11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.