Climate change is one of the greatest threats to health that societies face and can adversely affect mental health. Given the current lack of a European consensus paper on the interplay between climate change and mental health, we signal a need for a pan-European position paper about this topic, written by stakeholders working in mental health care.

On behalf of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), we give recommendations to make mental health care, research, and education more sustainable based on a narrative review of the literature.

Examples of sustainable mental healthcare comprise preventive strategies, interdisciplinary collaborations, evidence-based patient care, addressing social determinants of mental health, maintaining health services during extreme weather events, optimising use of resources, and sustainable facility management. In mental health research, sustainable strategies include investigating the impact of climate change on mental health, promoting research on climate change interventions, strengthening the evidence base for mental health-care recommendations, evaluating the allocation of research funding, and establishing evidence-based definitions and clinical approaches for emerging issues such as ‘eco-distress’. Regarding mental health education, planetary health, which refers to human health and how it is intertwined with ecosystems, may be integrated into educational courses.

The EPA is committed to combat climate change as the latter poses a threat to the future of mental health care. The current EPA position paper on climate change and mental health may be of interest to a diverse readership of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, educators, patients, and policymakers.

Fifty years after its introduction, the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Goldwater Rule remains contentious, prohibiting member-psychiatrists from providing mental health commentary on individuals they have not treated and where they lack consent. Whilst its resonance extends beyond the United States, there is limited awareness about the Goldwater Rule’s applicability elsewhere, notably within Europe.

In 2022, we investigated whether the European Psychiatric Association’s (EPA) forty-four National Psychiatric Association Members (NPAs) had similar guidelines to the Goldwater Rule or comparable ethical positions around media and public commentary. We initially searched NPA websites and subsequently contacted NPAs via email and phone. Findings were coded to four categories: “NPA-level rules or position”, “No NPA-level rules orposition but noted country-level rules”, “No NPA-level rules or position and did not note country-level rules”, and “No response”.

n=27 NPAs had relevant web materials or replied to our correspondence (61.3% of total NPAs). From these 27, based on our interpretation, n=6 (22.2%) had rules or positions, n=6 (22.2%) indicated that country-level rules existed, and n=15 (55.5%) did not have applicable NPA-level or country-level regulations.

A sizeable proportion of NPAs included in our study have not yet formally developed or considered ethical issues addressed by the Goldwater Rule and psychiatric commentary on an individual’s psychopathology. Accordingly, the EPA could consider broader discussions about this, accounting for national traditions and sociocultural aspects of clinical practice. These could integrate the advantages and disadvantages of the APA’s rubric towards an evolved ethical debate.

The Bulgarian Ministry of Health invited the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) to evaluate Bulgarian mental health care service provision in 2018. Bulgarian mental health services face very significant challenges including a legacy of historic underfunding, internal conflicts, poor planning, and the emigration of very high numbers of younger skilled staff that had followed accession to the European Union. There were significant disputes between stakeholders regarding the way forward and had been at least two unsuccessful previous external agency interventions that had attempted to find solutions.

This EPA position paper describes in detail the EPA mission to Bulgaria including methodology, findings, recommendations, and finally the positive actions and changes that are now underway as a result of the EPA report and intervention aimed at contributing towards improving Bulgarian mental health services.

After meetings with multiple stakeholders in the Bulgarian mental health system and analysis of data on service delivery, workforce, funding and configuration the EPA Panel agreed a list of twenty recommendations for change.

The EPA mission, with the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in Bulgaria, was successful in stimulating high level government action to improve mental health services. Despite longstanding differences, it was possible to involve the stakeholders in constructive dialogue. The importance of “speaking with one voice” was a key lesson learned.