In the shadow of the Holocaust, as the world grappled with the horrific realisation that members of the medical profession had been active participants in state-sponsored cruelty, the World Medical Association gathered in 1948. Their mission was to forge a new secular creed that would ensure “Never Again.” The result was the Declaration of Geneva—a modern revision of the Hippocratic Oath that transformed the doctor’s role from a passive healer to a moral watchdog.
For decades, this declaration sat quietly in the background of medical practice. However, during the presidency of Donald Trump, it has become the rallying cry for a controversial and unprecedented movement: a “Duty to Warn” led by mental health professionals who believed that their ethical obligations to humanity outweighed their professional codes of silence.
The Shield of Silence: The Goldwater Rule
To understand why so many experts chose to speak out, one must first understand the “Goldwater Rule.” Established in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), this rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering professional opinions or diagnoses of public figures without a personal examination and informed consent.
The rule was born of a desire to protect the dignity of the profession. For forty years, it remained the gold standard of psychiatric ethics. But as Donald Trump’s presidency progressed—marked by impulsive rhetoric, public displays of grandiosity, and perceived attacks on democratic institutions—a significant faction of the psychiatric community began to view the Goldwater Rule not as an ethical shield, but as a gag order.
The Declaration of Geneva: A Higher Law
When the APA doubled down on the Goldwater Rule in 2017, many experts turned to the Declaration of Geneva. Specifically, they pointed to the 2017 amendment, which states: “I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat.”
For figures like Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at Yale, and the authors of the bestselling The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, the Declaration of Geneva provided a mandate that superseded the APA’s internal bylaws. They argued that if a leader’s psychological state poses a threat to public safety, the “Duty to Warn”—a legal and ethical principle derived from the 1976 Tarasoff case—takes precedence over the privacy of a public figure.
In their view, silence was not neutrality; silence was complicity.
Beyond Diagnosis: The Question of Dangerousness
The experts who spoke out were careful to make a distinction: they weren’t necessarily “diagnosing” the President with a specific disorder from afar. Instead, they were assessing dangerousness.
They pointed to a pattern of behaviour that they argued was incompatible with the duties of the Commander-in-Chief:
Impulsivity: The habit of making major policy decisions or threats via social media with no prior consultation.
Paranoia and Grandiosity: A perceived inability to accept facts that contradicted a self-aggrandising narrative.
Lack of Empathy: The rhetoric regarding marginalised groups and political opponents.
The argument was simple: If a pilot showed signs of cognitive instability, a doctor would be required to report it to save the passengers. Why, they asked, should the person with the nuclear codes be held to a lower standard?
The Moral Weight of History
The invocation of the Declaration of Geneva was not accidental. It was a deliberate reminder that throughout history, destructive regimes have relied on the “professionalism” of experts to stay in power. When doctors remain silent in the face of erratic leadership or the erosion of human rights, they offer that leadership a veneer of normalcy.
The mental health professionals who broke the Goldwater Rule believed they were witnessing a “public health crisis of the presidency.” They argued that the psychological health of a leader is a matter of national security. By speaking out, they sought to de-normalise behaviours that they believed were leading the country toward instability and potential violence.
A Profession Divided
The movement was met with fierce internal resistance. Many in the medical community feared that “weaponising” psychiatry for political ends would supposedly destroy public trust in the profession. They argued that if psychiatrists became political commenters, patients would fear that their own doctors might judge them through a partisan lens.
However, the “Geneva faction” remained steadfast. They argued that ethics are not static; they must respond to the exigencies of the time. To them, the Declaration of Geneva is a living document that commands the physician to be a guardian of the human condition, not just a technician of the body.
The Legacy of the Outspoken
Whether one views these experts as courageous whistleblowers or partisan actors, their decision to speak out fundamentally changed the conversation around leadership and mental health. They forced the public to ask: At what point does a leader’s psychological fitness become the public’s business?
By leaning on the Declaration of Geneva, these experts reminded the world that the medical profession’s first loyalty is not to a rulebook or a political party, but to the preservation of human life and liberty. In a world of increasing political volatility, the tension between professional silence and the moral duty to speak remains one of the most critical ethical debates of the 21st century.
—
Read The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump on Amazon.
Postscript: 3rd April 2026.
France 24: Trump gloats on possible war crimes in Iran, but punishment distant
Just Security: Over 100 International Law Experts Warn: U.S. Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter and May Be War Crimes:
See also:
BBC News – ‘Be serious… don’t speak every day’: Macron criticises Trump approach to Iran war
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevk0e4ykwko
Worldwide Temple of Aurora 