[Neutrality in psychiatry: on the genocide in Gaza]

Attempts to initiate conversation about the genocide in Gaza within our institutions repeatedly raised the question: should psychiatrists speak out on this issue, or does neutrality require silence?

To clarify the meanings of medical and political neutrality in times of geopolitical violence and to explore the implications for psychiatrists in the consulting room, in the wider professional setting, and in their role as mental health advocate.

A reflective analysis based on literature, clinical experiences, and informal conversations with colleagues about the situation in Gaza.

Public silence about severe human rights violations conflicts with medical neutrality. Geopolitical violence elsewhere in the world affects the mental health of both patients and practitioners. In the consulting room, ignoring this context can lead to diagnostic failure. At the same time, discussing such violence may provoke tensions. Role awareness and peer consultation are essential to recognize (counter)transference and to develop the skills to manage it.

Advocacy within psychiatry against human rights violations is an extension of core medical values. Any tensions that arise from this in the workplace and in the consulting room should be openly addressed.