So far, the morphing rationales for contravening the Goldwater Rule fall short, because they elide the real issues at stake. Ethical behavior cannot hinge on artificial distinctions. Whereas invoking a duty to warn about presidential fitness was dubious, differentiating between a diagnosis and a professional opinion is specious.
Lt. Col. Kels practices health and disability law in the U.S. Air Force. Dr. Kels teaches and practices psychiatry at the University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine in San Antonio. Opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Air Force or Department of Defense.
References
1. Psychiatric Times. Mar 19, 2018.
2. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P2d 334 (Cal 1976).
3.The Boston Globe. Jan 2, 2018.
4. APA Principles of Medical Ethics, 2013 ed. [7.3].
5. Psychiatric Times. Jul 20, 2017.
6. APA Opinions of the Ethics Committee. 2017 ed. [Q.7b].
7. American Psychiatric Association (APA). “APA remains committed to supporting Goldwater Rule,” Mar 17, 2017.
8. The New York Times. Feb 13, 2017.
10. The Boston Globe. Feb 26, 2018.
11. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[5]:405-7.
12. Allen R. Dyer, MD, PhD. “Evolution of the so-called ‘Goldwater rule’: An ethical analysis,” revised Sep 23, 2017.
13. The Boston Globe. Jan 10, 2018.
14. Psychiatric Times. Feb 16, 2018.
15. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016;44[2]:226-35.
16. Psychiatric Times. Jul 20, 2017.
17. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016;45[2]:228-32.
18. The New York Times. May 24, 2011.
19. Am J Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 1;172[8]:729-30.
20. Fact. Sep-Oct 1964.
21. Psychiatric Times. Oct 7, 2016.
22. AMA Principles of Medical Ethics. 2016 ed. [VII].