Abstract
In the modern world, there is a growing risk of inappropriate leadership caused by psychological flaws in individuals who aspire to power. Therefore, society's caution against granting power to politicians who demonstrate psychological signs of dangerous personality traits is becoming increasingly relevant. The article aimed to identify the conceptual basis for resolving the main ethical dilemmas regarding the expert evaluation of the psychological characteristics and states of political figures. The article examined the ethical contradictions associated with public commentary by psychologists and psychiatrists on the personality traits and mental state of political leaders without informed consent and direct examination. The focus was on the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits professionals from commenting on the mental health of public figures based solely on publicly available information. The position of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on the strict prohibition of commenting was analysed, as were the arguments of critics of this position, who point to the transformation of the professional role of specialists and the civic duty to warn of danger. It was shown that the debate between supporters and opponents of the Goldwater Rule is based on a conflict between two basic ethical principles: nonmaleficence (avoidance of harm) with regard to the individual politician as a vulnerable client, and beneficence (creation of good) with regard to society as a collective client that must be informed about potential threats from leaders. At the theoretical level, the conflict was extrapolated to the contradiction between utilitarian and deontological ethics. The need for ethical pluralism as a way of resolving this conflict is highlighted. Thus, in the modern context, strict adherence to Goldwater's Rule does not always serve the public good. Ethical regulation should be based on weighing principles, contextual assessment of threats, and professional responsibility to both the individual and society. The results of this work can be used by professional communities of psychologists, psychiatrists, ethics committees, and media experts to develop regulations that balance the ethical responsibility of professionals to society and public figures in the evaluation of the psychological risks of political leadership