Abstract
ABSTRACTA number of psychiatrists and psychologists declared in the past year that the newly elected president was unfit to hold office due to mental illness, or being dangerous. Such declarations were made even though the subject had not been personally interviewed or tested and, consequently, they are guilty of malpractice. This has aggravated the already toxic milieu, wherein various prominent individuals have called for a coup d’etat to take place and families have broken up over election choices. Historical precedents for the current actions of these psychiatrists are presented, both in the United States and overseas. Dissenting psychiatrists brought up the Goldwater Rule that was created after the 1964 presidential election, which states that a psychiatrist may not make pronouncements of mental health on an individual that they have not personally examined. It is urged that the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science adopt the ethical Goldwater Rule.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
