I am perhaps the only person to have paid the consequences for breaking “the Goldwater rule.” No member of the APA has been disciplined for breaking it, as far as we know, and no state licensing board is allowed to take it on, as it conflicts with the First Amendment.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the APA was the way it handled debate—or blocked it altogether. When protest letters flooded its ethics committee after its March 2017 opinion, committee members assumed they would be reconvening; no such thing happened.
When its most distinguished life fellows wrote a letter asking for a discussion, the APA refused, stating that a discussion had already been had and there was nothing more to discuss!
Yet resignations continued, including of high-ranking officers, and members withheld their dues, but the APA did not seem concerned (of course, we later learned of unprecedented windfalls from the government).
Demands for a vote were refused, even as an informal poll by the American College of Psychiatrists showed that an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists disagreed with the current “rule”.
A veteran of ethics committees chaired his own committee to devise a thoughtful Goldwater rule revision proposal, hailed by many peers, but the APA did not even acknowledge receipt. Several APA administrative members drafted action papers over the years that met the same fate.
Finally, a foremost scholar on “the Goldwater rule” offered to chair a commission to reexamine the “rule”, which an APA president-elect enthusiastically accepted but rescinded after taking office; for the next 3 years to end of his life, he kept hoping the APA would turn around.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
