Reflections on the Goldwater Rule.

The APA's Goldwater Rule, precluding psychiatrists from rendering opinions to the media about public figures whom they have not examined, has often engendered controversy. Here, I consider the justifications for the rule, how well they stand up to criticism, and the extent, if any, to which modifications might be called for. Although embarrassment to the profession is often cited as the basis for the Rule, it reflects more substantive concerns, including the risk of harm to living persons and discouraging persons in need of treatment from seeking psychiatric attention. The most potent criticisms of the Rule are that it discourages public education about mental illness and its effects and precludes legitimate scholarly endeavors by psychiatrists studying foreign leaders, historical figures, and others. However, there are many ways of providing education about mental illness without violating the Rule, and read properly, it should not prevent legitimate historical investigation, though some clarification of the Rule on this point might be helpful. Even psychiatrists who seek to aid policymakers in dealing with international or domestic threats should not find that the Rule interferes with their efforts. On balance, the Goldwater Rule continues to be an important underpinning of ethical behavior by psychiatrists.