A year ago, we reported that the American Psychological Association (otherwise known as the APA, the professional association for half of the nation’s psychologists) banned psychologists from torture interrogations. But since that ban, psychologists against the APA’s stance on torture have not let the matter rest.
Why has the debate raged on, despite APA’s insistence it is 100% against torture and psychologists being involved in torture interrogations?
A July 1 article in Psychiatric Times helps shed some light on the issue:
The American Psychological Association ethics code that was in effect before and through the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks set forth the following enforceable standard regarding conflicts between ethical responsibilities and various forms of state authority. “1.02 Relationship of Ethics and Law: If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict.”
Although giving psychologists the option to violate their ethical responsibilities in order to follow the law, regulations, or other forms of legal authority had been discussed before September 11, it was only after that date — on August 21, 2002 — that the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted a new code (which took effect June 1, 2003) that added a new enforceable ethical principle to section 1.02: “If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.” It is worth noting that this new option is absolute and unqualified and applies not just to the specific requirements enumerated in the code but more generally to all “ethical responsibilities.”
It’s interesting to note how the authors of this article infer a causal relationship between two unrelated events without any evidence to back their claim. Nonetheless, the gist of their claim is this — the APA changed their ethical guidelines to allow psychologists to be involved in unethical torture interrogations and be protected by the Ethics Code because they were following a legal authority. The authors suggest this gives psychologists leeway to continue to be involved in torture, despite the APA’s unequivocal stance against torture.
Indeed, that’s what the APA notes in their written response to this letter, among other objections to the mischaracterization of the APA’s stance on torture.
So you’d think all of this would finally put this matter to bed?
Nope.
Psychologists at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association are distributing this flyer entitled, Protest Psychologists’ Involvement in Abusive Interrogations and Illegal Detention. The two hour rally will be held in front of the convention center in Boston where the APA’s meeting takes place on Saturday, August 16 at Noon and includes the following speakers:
- Dan Aalbers
- Ghislaine Boulanger, Ph.D.
- Ruth Fallenbaum, Ph.D.
- Brad Olson, Ph.D.
- Anthony Marsella, PhD
- Nathaniel Raymond
- Steven Reisner, Ph.D.
- Stephen Soldz, Ph.D.
- Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D.
As a professional who’s stood largely on the sidelines watching this debate take place within my own professional association, I think it’s turned into something of a surreal experience:
Psychologists: “Argh! APA allows psychologists to be involved in interrogations that may involve activities commonly thought of as torture! We must protest and have such involvement ended.”
APA: “Okay, you’re right, our bad. We now ban torture.”
Psychologists: “Well, you say you do, but your Ethics Code doesn’t reflect that.”
APA: “Well, it doesn’t matter. Trust us, it’s banned.”
And here’s the specific claim made in the APA letter:
In characterizing the psychologists’ position, the authors assert — incorrectly — that APA’s
prohibition against torture is somehow not enforceable under APA’s Code of Conduct.
APA’s Ethics Code absolutely prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment, as the Ethics Committee itself asserted in 2005. It would belie
common sense and any respect for humanity for a health professionals’ code of ethics not
to prohibit torture. APA’s Ethics Code does.
Well, you can see for yourself by reviewing the APA Ethics Code and search for the words “torture” or “interrogation” or “inhumane” or “prisoners” and find none of those words appear in the Code. The APA has separated this issue out from the main Code apparently in a set of resolutions on the matter. I believe this is what is confusing the matter — these resolutions do not appear in the main body of the Ethics Code, and therefore can be seen and interpreted by some psychologists as not having the same force as the Ethics Code.
As a member of the APA, I’m confused too. The Ethics Code says nothing of consulting other documents for other parts of the Code and, in fact, makes it pretty clear that this is the full Code that is in effect (the last revision took effect in 2003). Given the existing Code makes absolutely no mention of these resolutions or whether they have the same rule of force as the Ethical Standards in the Code itself, the APA has only itself to blame for the ongoing confusion and controversy.
Perhaps one of these days, the APA will figure things out and ensure all of their documents are internally consistent. Because, as it stands right now, I can understand why some psychologists are still up in arms over this core human rights issue.
References:
Pope, K.S. & Gutheil, R.G. (2008). The American Psychological Association and Detainee Interrogations: Unanswered Questions. Psychiatric Times, 25(8).
12 comments
APA psychologists are participating at Guantanamo in unethical treatment of detainees,detainees who are being held in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human
Rights.
SEE:
Psychologists, Guantanamo and Torture
August 1, 2006
By STEPHEN SOLDZ
The Global War on Terror, launched after 9-11, provided yet another opportunity to experiment with these behavioral science-based torture techniques. The establishment of a detention center at Guantánamo for those detained during the Afghanistan war and other battles in the “Global War on Terrorism” provided a particularly favorable environment. A total institution was created who inmates, the detainees, have, at least in the administration’s opinion, absolutely no rights and where all aspects of their daily life can be monitored and controlled. The administration’s legal doctrine emphasized that essentially anything short of direct murder was legally acceptable.
Various “behavioral scientists” from psychology and psychiatry were brought in to help the development of this total institution devoted to complete destruction of the personality. In 2005 it was revealed by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the New York Times that mental health professionals were serving as consultants on Behavioral Science Consultation Teams, BSCT (colloquially referred to as “biscuit” teams) at Guantánamo, designed to advise interrogators. These teams consult in every aspect of interrogation…
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz08012006.html
How does the APA view the term “triage” applied to ethics? In a medical setting some say that you have to let some purposely suffer and die to save the most. This is neglecting treatment of some. According to this thinking, some are expendable for the good of the majority. Any thoughts?
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Dr. Sam, I read your posts with interest here, but I have to say that the idea of “triage” here is a moot point. Hospitals aren’t in the business of saving people, they’re in the business of making money by cutting costs and overhead. This means, the fewest sustainable number of doctors possible at any given time.
More to the point of the article however, any licensed psychologist who uses their knowledge to harm a person has a loose view of the term “ethics.” From the very beginning of their education all the way to their practice, psychologists are taught about tools they can use which don’t harm individuals but can help interrogations. Most of us are taught in our very first psychology class about classical conditioning, Skinner’s ideas of behaviorism and operant conditioning, all of which can be used to help relieve the angst of prisoners and convince them that it’s in their best interests to help interrogators. And none of it has to include advising interrogators of the best way to bring psychological injury upon a detainee. I think it says more about the psychologists advising the interrogators than anything else that with all the tools they’re given through their education, they choose the route of the sadist instead of the healer. And really, someone who wants to bring harm to another person(whether it’s a detainee, an interrogator, or a psychologist)is more in need of healing than continued suffering. Relieve their dissonance! Make them want to talk, if there is anything they even have to say(a debate for another blog).
Eric,
I meant my question of the “triage” principle to be applied to a potential great loss of lives. I think I missed your answer on this.
I see your good heart. That is what I want also.
What do you do when you have a psychopath that is hardened, is a literal “predator” (like hungry wolf), is a seasoned manipulator and actor, is rock solid in his hatred for you and what you stand for, and knows of the next massive bombing of a public place in a major city. At least 5,000 persons stand to die. The bombing will take place in 48 hours. He is not cooperating with any “gentle” method. What do you do in this dilemma?
Either decision will incur loss. What would you do?
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
http://www.DrSam.tv
If the detainee program at Gitmo had proper legal checks and you knew someone had information (neither of which have been the case, unless you simply take the government at its word, I don’t!) then I still would say that torturing someone doesn’t lead to actionable intelligence. It’s not the psychologists responsibility. I suppose I would let the bomb go off because reason and evidence leads me to believe that torture wouldn’t make anyone any more likely to give you the information you need.
In your example you’d be torturing someone just because it felt better than not torturing them, which is sadism. These unlikely hypotheticals are better left to first year philosophy classes than the real world where people’s lives are in the balance.
Oh, and to follow up, to demean a method as “gentle” simply because it doesn’t involve the psychological torture of a prisoner is misleading. It shouldn’t be about how torturous you can be to a prisoner, it should be about how much USEFUL information you can extract from them, and TORTURE DOESN’T WORK.
Ouch, Eric… I was just asking a hypothetical question that potentially could be a reality. You are assuming just as much as I am. When I mentioned a “gentle” method, I really meant simply interrogation that is not with any force applied. Hence I was not alluding to torture as part of it. Keep in mind, Erik, terrorists hate you and me and would not bat an eye to slit our throats in a drop of a hat and murder all our families if given opportunity. You and I do not know how much is known about these guys. You may be right and you may be wrong. We would have to read minds to conclude either way without knowing for sure ourselves. We would be speculating and then acting on our speculation.
I did not mean to rattle your cage, friend.
Best regards,
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
The main point here is that just as medical doctors have a code of ethical conduct they must adhere to in order to practice in the United States, psychologists should have something similar.
Just as it wouldn’t be okay for a medical doctor to advise how best to apply hot irons to a person to maximize pain while avoiding death, psychologists shouldn’t be going around advising how to best apply psychological torture to break a person’s ego while retaining the coherence to tell investigators what they want to hear.
If you, as an individual, wish to participate in such things as torture, then maybe the question should be whether or not you think it’s worth losing membership to protect all of those people the terrorist wants to kill.
I would think that a person who really cared about saving people from the evil, no-good “terrorists” in Guantanamo would have no qualms about losing their membership in the APA in exchange for saving all of those people.
But the APA should not even implicitly condone such things by allowing these people to continue as members. Let the psychologist themselves make the individual choice between being healers or sadists, but the APA should be an association of healers.
Eric,
I can see your point. You have done a good job of clearly communicating the issue. In terms of looking at the APA position I can appreciate your concerns. I would tend to agree with you. This reminds me of a similar ethical issue that has had some medical doctors at opposite ends due to ethical codes/oaths. Some have claimed that if one subscribes to the Hippocratic Oath then fetal termination would be doing harm and violating that oath. If one argues that one wants the “higher good” of the mother then that is somewhat similar to the principle of triage where you sacrifice someone(s) for the greater “good” of the most or a higher level, etc. I find it amusing that the arguments are very similar on many levels.
I want to thank you for clarifying and helping me to understand more clearly this critical issue.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
If my parents and My two ugly half sisters do not stop torturing me and they are not even psycologists or nurses or doctors including bruce and sara (correen) walker from tampa florida and st.helens or then I will kill them and I dont care who heres or sees this because they are sexually molesting me via satellite and other numerous things they have done to me for the past 4 years and believe me I am no sex offender they are and I have tried to turn them in to internal affairs and the police please help before i end up in prison for murder because i beleive in god and they worship the devil