Hi All, Jim asks some important questions and highlights the complexity involved in discussing these concerns.
Jim Clark wrote: >1. With respect to the AMA ban > >Surely there must be many MDs working in these facilities? Has the AMA >actually taken steps to remove the license of anyone or are such bans >primarily symbolic? I read somewhere, perhaps incorrectly, that the AMA ban >did not identify use of drugs as a means of torture. Is this correct? Does >it considerably weaken the AMA ban? > > I have sent information to this list previously outlining some of the potential issues involved with the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Psychiatric Association (ApA) positions. They have long held stronger positions that the American Psychological Association (APA) but their positions are not perfect. The use of drugs is a suspected problem but due to the secretive nature of detention centers such as the CIA sites and Guantanamo Bay, little is definitively known. Regardless, these sites have been condemned by both the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Red Cross based on what is known. Both international organizations have called for the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay and related sites based on violations of international law. My personal perspective is that it is best for psychologists to focus on improving our positions as opposed to arguing who does it best. History will judge all who have participated in these endeavors. Note that most of the work at Guantanamo Bay and related sites done by physicians associated with the AMA and ApA are covered under the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp40.htm) and Declaration 4 of The World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo. Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htm). For more on this issues, see the Physicians for Human Rights website at http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/ . >2. With respect to Psychology > >Do psychologists perhaps work in other settings that might be impacted by a >ban? For example, do some prisons use isolation as a means of punishment or >even to protect inmates from abuse? Would the resolution apply to such >settings? If not, why not? > > > This is an important question particularly when we start discussing some of the "supermax" prisons. And perhaps, the APA will want to address concerns about these prisons at some point. One of the concerns expressed by one of the APA governance groups that reviewed the initial proposed Moratorium Resolution was that it didn't go far enough to include problems associated with domestic prisons. Nonetheless, the current resolution and proposed amendment was solely aimed at, as it states in the title, "Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as "Enemy Combatants." Therefore, the 2007 Resolution does not apply to other settings. The resolution may stimulate individuals to consider human rights concerns in other situations--not a bad thing for us to always evaluate our position on ethical concerns. Nonetheless, the 2007 Resolution does not apply beyond the focused setting described in the title and the resolution. Another important distinction is that in U.S. prisons, prisoners have access to attorneys and the courts. Therefore, due process is maintained and these prisons do not fall under the heading of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" as defined by the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Although we might perceive many prisons as sites of cruelty, the question is a legal question and this is why attorneys and the justice system are involved. We do not place psychologists in these sites as a replacement for the legal system to protect prisoners during interrogations or as "safety officers" (not my label but a label used by a psychologist working at Guantanamo). Attorneys are present during interrogations. Psychologists are largely present in a health care capacity at most prisons. >3. Military psychologists > >Psychologists must work in many capacities that ultimately have a negative >impact on people. Are there not psychologists involved in the development of >weapons systems, the training of soldiers to kill, and so on? Do their >actions violate the "do no harm" ethic? If not, why not? And what about >psychologists involvement when the state is arguably the aggressor in a >conflict? > > All excellent questions. Yes, psychologists play a myriad of roles in the military and I'm sure that some would question these positions on ethical grounds. However, neither the APA nor APS has addressed these concerns and I don't see them tackling these concerns soon. Bear in mind that the military is the number one employer of psychologists in the United States. I should also note that the military psychologists (Division 19) were very supportive of the 2006 APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They are also very concerned about the actions of the CIA for which the military psychologists are often blamed (e.g. harsh interrogation techniques). The Army Field Manual is clear in its limitations of techniques used in interrogations and notes that 95% of the time, you get the information you need from simple, direct questions and that the use of torture elicits a wealth of faulty and misleading information. Military psychologists were also active participants in the Ethics and Interrogations mini-convention at the APA Convention. One of the primary concerns in writing the 2007 Resolution is that it would be applicable to those outside the military working in interrogations with "enemy or illegal enemy combatants" (e.g., CIA independent government contractors). See for information about two psychologists who have been implicated in abuses - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/21/cia_sere/index.html . The only focus of the 2006 Resolution was the issue of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined under international and domestic law. The only focus of the 2007 Resolution was the application of principles to prisoners defined as "enemy combatants" or "illegal enemy combatants" as defined under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. What you describe above as potential concerns are less likely to be dealt with by professional associations but more likely to be dealt with under international law. Of course, this would largely depend if the aggressor were the victor or not. >4. War or non-war? > >A fundamental question for me is whether acts of terrorism are equivalent to >"declarations of war" by a state. But then it is not clear whether acts are >held to a higher standard in times of war or non-war? > > Interestingly, during times of war, combatants would be defined as "enemy combatants" and protected under the Geneva Conventions and a host of other UN conventions, declarations, and covenants. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 identified a new class of combatant--"illegal enemy combatant." According to the US, these individuals have not been granted the same protects. President Bush's position has been clear from the start that individuals captured in the "war on terror" are not "prisoners of war" and therefore, not afforded the protections outlined under international law. The Military Commissions Act made these distinctions and their impact on law retroactive. Of course, many international organizations (e.g., the United Nations, the International Red Cross) and professional organizations (e.g., American Bar Association, ACLU) disagree. To Peace, Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and International Human Rights Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence (Div. 48, APA) <http://www.peacepsych.org> Steering Committee, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) <http://www.psysr.org> Secretary, Raphael Lemkin Award Committee, Institute for the Study of Genocide <http://www.isg-iags.org/> 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 ---
