The ethics of psychiatrists’ political involvement: A reassessment in the Trump era

G. Andrade, M. Campo-Redondo

Research output: Contribution to journalShort surveypeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Psychiatry's relationship with politics has been historically problematic. There has been extensive debate about whether psychiatry's own origins as a medical specialty were political themselves. But, it is beyond dispute that the Soviet Union did use psychiatry for political purposes, and currently Russia and China do the same. On the basis of this historical experience, there has been a consensus that psychiatrists must be very careful not to mingle with politics. In the United States, this has been enshrined in the Goldwater rule. But, the election of Donald Trump as US President, and questions about his mental stability, have motivated a reassessment of the status quo. This article considers the ethics of psychiatrists’ political involvement. It concludes that, despite understandable concerns, psychiatry must remain fundamentally apolitical.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100554
JournalEthics, Medicine and Public Health
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2020


  • Donald Trump
  • Donald Trump
  • Goldwater Rule
  • Goldwater Rule
  • Politics
  • Politique
  • Psychiatrie
  • Psychiatry
  • Soviet Union
  • Union soviétique

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy


Dive into the research topics of 'The ethics of psychiatrists’ political involvement: A reassessment in the Trump era'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this