The Goldwater Rule and free speech, the current 'political morass', and more

The Goldwater Rule and free speech

In his editorial, “The toxic zeitgeist of hyper-partisanship: A psychiatric perspective” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, February 2018, p. 17-18), Dr. Nasrallah notes that he “adheres” to the APA’s Goldwater Rule. The Goldwater Rule and the reason for its creation and current implementation in the United States cannot be fully understood without appreciating the political circumstances that led to its creation in 1964. The conservative movement had been using the slogan “better dead than red” to criticize Democrats who they felt were soft on communism. Unfortunately, some psychiatrists took these words and the views of Arizona senator Barry Goldwater quite literally. They claimed they understood his psychological structure by listening to his political views, and feared that he would risk starting a nuclear war. Of course, no psychiatrist actually examined senator Goldwater. During the 1964 presidential campaign, a television commercial from President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign included a mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion with an implicit reference to senator Goldwater and the “better dead than red” slogan. In the end, psychiatry, and particularly psychoanalysis, as well as President Johnson’s campaign, were embarrassed.

One’s political views do not inform us of his or her mental health status. This appreciation can be obtained only by a thorough psychological assessment. This is the basis of the Goldwater Rule, coupled with the ethical responsibility not to discuss patients’ private communications.

Today, this rule is tested by the behavior and actions of President Donald Trump. Proponents of the Goldwater Rule state that a psychiatrist cannot diagnose someone without performing a face-to-face diagnostic evaluation. This assumes psychiatrists diagnose patients only by interviewing them. However, any psychiatrist who has worked in an emergency room has signed involuntary commitment papers for a patient who refuses to talk to them. This clinical action typically is based on reports of the patient’s potential dangerousness from family, friends, or the police.

The diagnostic criteria for some personality disorders are based only on observed or reported behavior. They do not indicate a need for an interview.  The diagnosis of a personality disorder cannot be made solely by interviewing an individual without knowledge of his or her behavior. Interviewing Bernie Madoff would not have revealed his sociopathic behavior.

The critical question may not be whether one could ethically make a psychiatric diagnosis of the President (I believe you can), but rather would it indicate or imply that he is dangerous? History informs us that the existence of a psychiatric disorder does not determine a politician’s fitness for office or if they are dangerous. Behavioral accounts of President Abraham Lincoln and his self-reports seem to confirm that at times he was depressed, but he clearly served our country with distinction.

Finally, it is not clear whether the Goldwater Rule is legal. It arguably interferes with a psychiatrist’s right of free speech without the risk of being accused of unethical behavior. I wonder what would happen if it were tested in court. Does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect a psychiatrist’s right to speak freely?

Sidney Weissman, MD
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science
Feinberg School of Medicine
Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois

The current ‘political morass’

Thank you, Dr. Nasrallah, for the wonderful synopsis of the current political morass in your editorial (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, February 2018, p. 17-18). You followed Descartes’ dictum: you thought about matters in a novel fashion. I will assertively share this with others. It is a good piece of teaching.

James Gallagher, MD
Private psychiatric practice
Des Moines, Iowa

Continue to: The biological etiology of compulsive sexual behavior