https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19774754
In the United States presidential election of 1964, Barry Goldwater competed with Lyndon Johnson, and
Fact Magazine presented 1,189 psychiatrists’ suggestions for Goldwater’s psychological unfitness to be president. Barry Goldwater sued Ralph Ginzburg, the editor of
Fact Magazine, for defamation and won $75,000 (about $592,000 today) in damages [1-6]. Thereafter, according to the medical ethical principles of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), it is considered unethical for psychiatrists to give their professional opinion about public figures who have not been evaluated personally and who do not agree with public opinion about their mental health [7]. Further, consistent with the ethical principles of the APA, the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles recommend taking strict precautions about psychologists’ media presentations [8]. Somewhat inconsistent with the ethical principles of the APA, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) partly permits psychoanalysts to offer psychoanalytic insights to help the public comprehend a wide range of political, artistic, cultural, historical, economic, and other phenomena. Despite this permission, psychoanalysts have been requested to maintain “extreme caution” when making statements to the mass media about public figures, and the limitations of psychoanalytic inferences about individuals who have not been interviewed in depth has been noted [
9]. As shown in
Table 1, according to the
ethical principles of these mental health professional societies, professional comments about public figures via mass media are commonly regarded as acts that are inconsistent with journalism ethics or should be carried out with “extreme precaution.”