Search

The election of President Trump has led to interest in his mental health and has resulted in heightened scrutiny regarding the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule, with its prohibition on opining psychiatrically on the mental health of public figures whom one has not examined in person. This article highlights the historic, methodological, forensic, and ethics challenges regarding psychiatric approaches to leadership analysis, and how these can offer policy makers options regarding national security decision-making., (© 2018 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

This article strongly supports the Goldwater Rule, a position arrived at through an exploration of journalism ethics and practice norms for reporting on public figures, and justified by three claims. First, there is a seldom-acknowledged contradiction in ethics when it comes to journalistic reporting on public figures, one that is increasingly difficult to navigate in the current media climate. Second, the goal of informing and educating the public through offering a professional opinion about the mental health of public figures is often misaligned with the realities of journalistic storytelling. Third, there are ways to inform and educate the public about mental health and public figures that do not violate the Goldwater Rule., (© 2017 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)