My thanks to Linda Woolf, for her update on the activities of Division 48 and the Division for Social Justice on the ethics of involvement of psychologists in interrogating terrorists. I agree with Christopher Green's statement that ". . . 'our' APA seems to have been playing a little footsie with the US military lately." This issue should be of grave concern to us all.
I cannot help but wonder if the political incentive for the APA here is related to the support for prescription privileges (and training for such) for clinical psychologists in the Military systems of care. Otherwise, I am hard- pressed to imagine what could motivate the stand taken by the APA on interrogating terrorists and/or the homosexuality discharge. The implications for the future of psychologists and our ethical standards are frightening to me. I sent a letter to the APA ethics committee on June 7, which I have pasted below. _______________________________________________________________________________ This is a letter of concern to the APA Ethics Committee, and its Chair, Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD. This article in the New York Times was of grave concern to me: Military Alters the Makeup of Interrogation Advisers By NEIL A. LEWIS <http://bumail.bakeru.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/neil_a_lewis/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Published: June 7, 2006 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/washington/07detain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin <http://bumail.bakeru.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://bumail.bakeru.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/washington/07detain.html?_r=2%2526oref=slogin%2526oref=slogin> > I was especially concerned with the following: "But Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, recent past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted in an interview that the group adopted a policy in May unequivocally stating that its members should not be part of the teams. The counterpart group for psychologists, the American Psychological Association, has endorsed a different policy. It said last July that its members serving as consultants to interrogations involving national security should be "mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration." Stephen Behnke, director of ethics for the organization, said psychologists knew not to participate in activities that harmed detainees. But Dr. Behnke also said the group believed that helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part of an effort to prevent terrorism." It is completely inadequate as an ethical policy to request that people be "mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts," especially given what we know about the effect of powerful social situations. If the committee is unfamiliar with the original research supporting the position that reasoning in situations like this is notoriously bad, I would be happy to provide you with references. Our 2002 revised Ethical code states: "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline." (Italics mine.) My argument against "mindfulness" rather than "specific standards" does not even address the psychologist's duty to the welfare and protection of the individual being interrogated (presumably, with whom the psychologist is working at some level), that individual's right to informed consent before sharing information, or the psychologist's obligations should he or she become aware of potential abuse of that individual. I recognized that the recent revision of the ethical code had replaced "Psychologists are sensitive to real and ascribed differences in power between themselves and others, and they do not exploit or mislead other people during or after professional relationships" (Italics mine.) with the phrasing "Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence," but I guess I did not understand how the change in phrasing would result in such a change in priorities and the subsequent change in our responsibility to the individual with the least power in any given situation. It is funny to me that the American Psychiatric Association has taken the moral high ground on this issue. Are we willing to sell out our values for the business the military can offer us? Is the military the "group with whom psychologists work" that most needs our help to safeguard its welfare? Would we stand up for the ethics of a psychologist who aided in the "interrogation" of American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan? Would it have been ok to do so in Japan or Germany? In Russia? How would we know if they had been "mindful of factors unique to these roles?" How would we eliminate our own biases and extend them the same ethical high ground that we claim for ourselves in helping to "prevent terrorism?" Does it really make a difference what group is employing the psychologist when it comes to using what we know about human behavior against a captive individual in order to extract information (that is highly unreliable) against their will? I hope that I am joined by MANY other APA members when I request that APA meet and clarify it's stand on what is and is not ok when it comes to being involved in any activity that may encourage (or even close its eyes to) mental and/or physical torture of human beings, especially those with diminished power, for any reason. I hope that the APA has not lost sight of the importance of setting standards for the ethical behavior of psychologists all over the world. Wendi K. Born Clinical Psychologist Assistant Professor of Psychology, Baker University Baldwin City, Kansas 66006 ________________________________ From: Linda Woolf, Ph.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 6/20/2006 7:27 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [SPAM] - [tips] Re: Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder - Yahoo! News - Bayesian Filter detected spam Hi Y'all, Christopher D. Green wrote: Linda Woolf, Ph.D. wrote: Christopher D. Green wrote: While were talking about relations between the gov't and psychologists, I wonder what the APA will have to say about this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays The other APA has already publicly responded - see copied/pasted letter below. Note that the psychology APA has a number of council resolutions already on the books related to gay/lesbian issues including one related to military service - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/military.html It would seem easy enough for the Association to issue a statement reiterating the points made in the Council Resolution. Yes, they *could*, but "our" APA seems to have been playing a little footsie with the US military lately over the issue of when a psychologist can "ethically" "participate" in an "interrogation" (I put each of these terms in scare quotes because each of them appears to have been employed systematically ambiguously in order that everyone can claim what they want to claim while simulataneously doing what they want to do. Indeed. Here is an email that I sent out recently to members of Division 48 (http://www.peacepsych.org <http://www.peacepsych.org/> ) concerning this issue. Note that if anyone would like a PDF copy of newsletter articles on this topic, email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best, Linda Dear Colleagues, Many of you have written me over the past week expressing your concern about the recent news articles concerning psychologists involvement in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. I will respond to each of you soon but I wanted you to all know that the Society (Division 48) and the Divisions for Social Justice have been and continue to work diligently to address this issue. We maintain the position that psychologists should not be involved in any form of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment either directly or indirectly at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere. Please read about our work in the past two newsletters and know that we will continue to keep you informed through the Newsletter and periodic updates via this announcement list. I also hope you will drop me an email with your thoughts and concerns. For now, some of you might be interested in reading a transcript of the interview with Gerald Koocher (APA President) on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. Steven Reisner of Division 39 (psychoanalysis) also participated in that discussion. I urge you to read or listen to this program - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/16/1355222 . Additionally, note that we have several programs related to this topic at the upcoming APA Convention in New Orleans including: Invited Symposium: Human Rights, Torture, and Professional Responsibility 8/10 Thu: 12:00 PM - 1:50 PM Morial Convention Center, Meeting Room 245 Chairs: Linda M. Woolf, PhD, Webster University Title: Human Rights, Professional Ethics in an Age of Torture Lite Michael G. Wessells, PhD, Randolph--Macon College Title: Visible Remedies for Invisible Settings and Sources of Torture Jean Maria Arrigo, PhD, Project on Ethics and Art in Testimony, Irvine, CA Title: Liberation Psychology Challenges U.S. Psychologists: Ethics, Torture, and Guantanamo M. Brinton Lykes, PhD, Boston College Joan H. Liem, PhD, University of Massachusetts Boston Title: Professional Responsibility: Public and Professional Perceptions Judith L. Van Hoorn, PhD, Mills College Discussant: Stephen H. Behnke, JD, PhD, APA Ethics Office, Washington, DC **************** Invited Symposium (Section IX:Psychoanalysis for Social Responsibility) Co-Sponsored with Division 48: Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence): Psychopolitical Dynamics and Consequences of Torture 8/11 Fri: 4:00 PM - 5:50 PM Morial Convention Center, Meeting Room 347 Chairs: Linda M. Woolf, PhD, Webster University, St. Louis, MO Neil E. Altman, PhD, Postdoctoral Program, New York University, New York, NY Title: The Psychodynamics of Torture Neil E. Altman, PhD, Postdoctoral Program, New York University, New York, NY Title: The Darkness Continues: The Psychological Consequences of Torture When It's Called GWOT Nina K. Thomas, PhD, Postdoctoral Program, New York University, New York, NY Title: The U.S. and Torture: Realities and Ethical/Legal Conundrums Barbara J. Olshansky, JD, Center for Constitutional ****************** Presidential Address: Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence 8/12 Sat: 12:00 PM - 12:50 PM Morial Convention Center, Meeting Room 283 Linda M. Woolf, PhD, Webster University Title: Human Rights and Psychology: An Agenda for the 21st Century The full Society convention schedule can be found at http://www.webster.edu/peacepsychology/apaconventionprogram06.html . Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to be involved in working on any issue within the Society. To Peace, Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence (Div. 48, APA) Professor of Psychology Coordinator - Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights Webster University 470 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . . Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
