On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:06:24 -0700, Louis Schmier wrote: >Thanks, Mike. It was Salon.com in the link of today's NY Times >that I picked that stuff up. I was wondering if at the annual conference >in 2006 the 2005 policy was repudiated and changed. If nothing else, >it showed a split among psychologists who seemed to let their >Maimonides responsibility to do no harm be overridden by their >"patriotism" and those who stuck to the view that psychologist are there >to heal not hurt. I wonder if the split, in spite of the official policy, >still >exists. I'm sure it does. After all, psychologists are human, liberal, >conservative, etc., like everyone else.
I'm still not sure I understand what you're asking for. A few points: (1) It sounds like you're asking for polling data on APA members on where they stand with respect to the torture resolutions, that is, how many are for/against it. I'm not aware of any such polling nor do I know who or why such polling would be done. Given that APA has made this part of his code of ethics, it doesn't really matter whether one agrees or not with it: if someone wanted to "charge" someone with a breach of professional ethics in this area, one could always cite chapter and verse of the code in support of the charge. (2) Let's face it, there is very little that APA can do with respect to ethical violations outside of expelling the member from the APA and publishing a public notice to the membership that the person has been expelled. Non-members can't be touched by the APA though they might be subject to sanctions by other professional groups. The real force behind dealing with ethical violations is if it also violates some law, in which case it's a matter for the legal system. (3) I am somewhat puzzled by your quote of Maimonides because a large number of academic/research psychologists are under the oversight of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) which, as many will attest, go to ridiculous extents in considering what is an ethical violation. I think your concerns are better directed toward psychologists who are in the military or are contracted by the military and/or the intelligence services. I don't know how many psychologists are in these roles but they have to be a tiny number of all psychologists. Moreover, the contexts in which these psychologists operate are different from the academic, research, and clinical contexts most psychologists operate in. Whereas an academic psychologist can refuse to cooperate with, say, the chairperson of their department, a military psychologist can refuse to obey an order under very limited circumstances and even these will probably lead to an formal inquiry (thus, the APA's admonishment to "Disobey orders that involve torture" is no trivial action; is can affect a military psychologist's entire career). I think that a better principle to follow than Maimonides' is, I believe, attributed to Sartre: "Avoid situations that give rise to evil". -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
