Wynia, M. K., Peek, M. E., & Heisler, M. (2025).
The Lancet.
Here is how it opens:
In 2025 the US Federal Government has attacked scientific research and evidence, medical expertise, public health, health equity, and human rights. At this challenging time, many health professionals are uncertain about what is in their power to change, and whether or how they may be ethically obligated to engage in public advocacy.
While clinical advocacy on behalf of individual patients is a long-standing core value across health professions, clinicians also have public advocacy obligations. For health professionals, one definition of public advocacy is taking actions to promote “social, economic, educational, and political changes that ameliorate suffering and contribute to human well-being” that are identified through “professional work and expertise”. Public advocacy obligations are in the Physician Charter, endorsed by 109 organisations internationally, and the American Medical Association’s Declaration of Professional Responsibility, endorsed by almost 100 US medical associations. Nearly two-thirds of US medical schools’ curricula include teaching on public advocacy skills.
Here are some thoughts:
Psychologists have an ethical duty to advocate against policies harming mental health and human rights, grounded in principles of justice and beneficence. When witnessing harm directly, possessing relevant expertise, or being positioned to create change—such as documenting trauma in marginalized groups or analyzing mental health impacts of funding cuts—advocacy becomes imperative. While fears of backlash exist, collective action through professional organizations can reduce risks. Psychologists must leverage their unique skills in behavioral science and public trust to combat misinformation and promote evidence-based policies. Advocacy isn't optional—it's core to psychology's mission of reducing suffering and upholding equity, especially amid growing threats to vulnerable populations.
