The Goldwater Rule: Why psychologists can't diagnose famous people

The Goldwater rule prevents psychologists from diagnosing people they haven't met or assessed based solely on what they see in the media. Is this rule a critical protection of privacy, or is this an outdated concept in the age of social media?

Further Reading:
McLoughlin, A. (2021). The Goldwater Rule: a bastion of a bygone era?. History of Psychiatry, 0957154X211062513.

Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Reflections on the Goldwater rule. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 45(2), 228-32.

Kroll, J., & Pouncey, C. (2016). The ethics of APA’s Goldwater rule. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 44(2), 226-235.

Levine, M. A. (2017). Journalism Ethics and the Goldwater Rule in a" Post-Truth" Media World. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 241-248.

[definitelynotapossum]

I heard the Goldwater rule being talked about a lot in the Johnny Depp trial and wanted to know what it was. In my quick Google search I never expected to find my new favorite channel! Thank you for making such awesome videos!

[AlbatrossKnight]

If a doctor who has never met you tell other people that you have an illness and that you are going through all sorts of treatment and taking different types of medicine, that is clearly an unethical. Likewise, if a psychiatrist does the same, then it should be illegal. That's on par with defamation. That s how I see it.

[joymcclure]

It’s unethical, irresponsible, inaccurate and dangerous to DIAGNOSE someone (anyone) without a direct evaluation to include testing and an accurate history. A diagnosis is something that tends to stick whether it’s accurate or not and can greatly effect how the individual is viewed and treated.
I was misdiagnosed with a medical condition and it led to doctors refusing to do further testing and attempting to treat me for something I didn’t have. It took another year and a half to finally find a doctor who believed that the diagnosis was wrong and start testing to get the real diagnosis. As a result, I have more nerve, tendon, ligament and joint damage than I would’ve had if I had gotten the right treatment sooner. It’s not different for public figures who are viewed (and lose everything) based on an inaccurate diagnosis like Mr Goldwater… and JD really.
There’s no issue with stating that there are concerns with certain behaviors, asking questions and suggesting the person be evaluated, or even speculating (while also acknowledging you don’t have enough info to give a true diagnosis), but should NEVER EVER state a formal diagnosis. However, I don’t think it really changes your ability to make these videos.🤷🏻‍♀️

[el]

Does the rule still apply if the famous person is dead? We should be allowed to change our opinion on someone if they're not around anymore.

[ucr]

I would say psychiatrists or psychologists should properly diagnose patients by interviewing patients and giving patients to fill out psychological evaluations and cognitive tests (especially when checking for dementia). If the person answers that they have no desire to kill or physically harm people or themselves and can recall stuff, then their mental health is fine.

[JonathanGrandt]

Goldwater Schmoldwater.

THERE. I SAID IT.

[terryr]

Now that everyone has access to the DSM-5, they think they're capable of diagnosing people. As a clinical social worker, I don't believe it's right to diagnose people I haven't personally assessed. Everyone acts different under different circumstances or in their private lives. It is unethical to base my judgement from a fleeting video on TMZ, for example. The same with medical doctors making medical judgements on people they only see in a video.

[jthompsondb]

A proper diagnosis would be impossible without a proper evaluation (in person can be debateable with this new therapy online thing … I don’t feel I’m versed enough in it to properly respond on that). Opinions should allowed from licensed Psychologist, yet I believe for legal purposes, they should know, they should state it is opinion and not their professional advice. Now the limit to, ,opinion” should be the same for everyone, being a licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist does not makes you special. I guess I will look into it when I get my doctorate, yet everyone when talking about something as serious as borderlining defamation should be wise enough to make sure to state it is thier opinion … or face the possible consequence, what is said can have damaging effects that could last a lifetime especially when the speaker has some influence on people … да)

[perlaursen]

I dont know why, and I cant argument for my position. Im no psychiatrist or psychologist, but it put a lot of confidence in this ladys opinions. Strangely enough, I dont have the same same trust listening to citizen Trumps speeches. Am I a strange or weired kind of person, since I dont feel a strong attracktion to Donald Trumps messages, as the millions of his followers?