Human Rights Protection and APA Ethics Code Human rights have been defined as rights that are given to everyone. The protection of these rights should be the priority of every practicing psychologist, because doing this enables the psychologist to help improve his society. In essence, Human rights are basic fundamental ethical and moral principles that set the minimum standards for treating others and/or for behavior (Hudson, 2015).

Governments have to legally enforce these rights and every individual by the fact that he or she is human is entitled to these rights, wherever he or she is lives in the world. Immediately after the end of World War II there emerged a movement that advocated for the adoption of human rights. Not long after, in the year 1953, the APA (American Psychological Association) came up with their own code for Ethical conduct of practitioners in the field (Hudson, 2015). Even though the first Ethics code drafted by the association contained over 150 pages, the current code is much more brief and to the point. The shortening of the code of conduct somewhat reflects the change in societal opinions regarding ethics over the same period of time (Smith, 2003).

Ethics Code

The APA ethics code applies only to activities in the field of psychology that are related to educational, professional or scientific roles of practitioners in this field; Roles such as those associated with: administration; forensic psychology; consulting services; educational psychology; conduction of studies; social activities; the design of evaluation instruments; trainee supervision; research and clinical psychology. The APA Ethics Code covers these and many more activities in different contexts including: one-on-one; over the internet; telephone and/or postal. These activities are however to be differentiated from the private conduct of practitioners in the field of psychology as such conduct is not under consideration in this code (Ethical Principles, n.d.).

The main objective of the code is to provide standards and guidance for the professional conduct of psychologists. Standards which can be applied by the association and any other organization that opts to adopt them. If, however, a psychologist is found not to have adhered to any of the APA standards that does not automatically mean that he or she is legally liable (Ethical Principles, n.d.).

Application of Ethics Code

Whenever a psychologist is making a decision about how he should act professionally, he or she must take into account the Ethics Code and other relevant laws and regulations set by the board. If a situation occurs such that the Ethics Code has proposed a standard that is higher than that which is legally required the psychologist must opt to meet the higher standard. If in a different scenario, the moral duty of the psychologist is not in line with the regulations, laws or other provisions set by a regulatory authority, then he or she must make a personal commitment to the code and act to resolve the conflict in a manner that is in line with the fundamental principles of human rights (Ethical Principles, n.d.).

Review of the 2002 Ethics Code

After going through over thirteen hundred comments and feedback on 7 drafts, in the month of August 2002, the council of representatives of the American Psychological Association decided to unanimously adopt the final draft as the new Ethics Code (APA, 2002b) ("A Code of Ethics," n.d.). Overall, the new Ethics Code is a somewhat limited revision that did retain the basic structure and the majority of the principles of the prior Ethics Code of 1992 (APA, 1992; Knapp & Van de Creek, 2003).

Resolution of 2007

In the year 2007, the association's council of representatives met and resolved to change APA's official position on human torture and other forms of punishment. Basing their arguments on the Resolution against torture (2006), the American Psychological Association stated its concern with regards to how detained people in prisons/detention centers were denied fundamental human rights. In their 2007 resolution the APA called upon psychologists to not agree to work in places where torture was taking place (Okorodudu, Strickland, Van Hoorn & Wiggins, 2007). Moreover, the association also expressed strong concern against the utilization of torture during interrogations and officially petitioned the United States government to put an end to such practices.

In the year 2008, the verbiage used in the 2007 resolution was altered to include text calling for the removal of practitioners in the field of psychology from environments in which detainees were being deprived of human rights except in environments that such professionals were directly participating in protecting such rights (APA, 2009).

Even though the initial resolution 2007 and its subsequent enhancement in 2008 were the rights steps in the right direction in terms of improving the 2002 Ethics Code, they were still not sufficient...

In the year 2010, the association's council of representatives again attempted to address the problems within the ethics code that was in use at that time by utilizing a different language in the text towards eliminating ambiguity and thereby, misinterpretations (APA, 2010).
Historic Disapproval by APA

The 2010 amendments to the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics represent the association's long standing disapproval of all cruel interrogation methods (Fisher, 2012). In June of 2010 the association again changed the language of the 2007 and 2008 documents. In doing so, the APA reduced ambiguity and sought to clarify its earlier assertion on the action a psychologist should take if his or her ethical responsibility was in conflict with rules or regulations set by a higher authority. The APA stated, pertaining this matter that a psychologist is not allowed to act in any manner that would violate or disregard any human rights (APA, 2010).

Change of the Ethics Code in 2010

The updated version of the Ethics Code of 2010 signifies a community that is growing socially relative to the 2002 Ethics Code. In the years following the 2002 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, it is not surprising the Bush government utilized to its advantage the Nuremberg defense that had just been incorporated in the 2002 Ethics Code. They particularly took advantage of the 'defense' during the interrogation of suspected terrorists in detention camps such as Guantanamo Bay.

When images of torture and other cruel interrogation tactics came to the attention of the public, it showed a side of mankind that was cold and primal. Immediately after the attack up to the year 2009, the U.S. government contracted psychologists to help in the detention camps and they were able to do so taking advantage of an ambiguity in the Nuremberg defense loophole in the ethics code.

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal maneuver in which someone accused of doing something argues that he or she was just following orders from 'above' (higher-up, seniors in the administration). The defense has often been utilized by U.S. government agencies and American defense contractors to defend themselves against charges of being participants in discrimination cases ("Definition," n.d.).

The phrase originally came from the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi crimes after the Second World War. During the trials, war criminals who were being charged with mass murder, genocide, rape and other war crimes claimed that they were only following orders from higher authorities. Similar to the war time Nuremberg trials, if the government whose authority was used to commit the alleged crimes is in power and it is running the court where the case is being tried the defendant is likely to have immunity against the offenses he or she committed (Huffman & Klein, 2013).

The Nuremberg defense allowed psychologists not to take into consideration the set standards when ordered by an official that was of a higher rank (Pope & Gutheil, 2009). However, the 2010 change of language in the Ethics Code prevented psychologists from working in any environment in which there was deprivation of human rights. This signified a marked improvement in societal values.

By addressing the problems in the 2002 Ethic Code, the association then had a voice to condemn the federal government's cruel interrogation tactics. The 2002 Ethics Code was made up of a number of guiding principles and several other specific standards that were structured into 10 categories. The principles were primarily aspirational -- psychologists were merely morally urged to aspire to meet those principles in their professional conduct. There is no provision in the 2002 Code that explicitly cautioned psychologists against not acting in line with the standards (Standard 2.0.1, American Psychological Association, 2002, pp.1063-1064). The changes made to the Ethics code however increasingly relate to conduct while in practice and are making the code more and more enforceable (Huffman & Klein, 2013).

References

A Code of Ethics for Psychology. (n.d.). http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/49938_ch_1.pdf

Definition: Nuremberg Defense. (n.d.). http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Nuremberg_Defense.htm

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and code of conduct. (n.d.). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Fisher, C. B. (2012). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hudson, C. L. (2015). The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code & Human Rights Protection, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apa-ethics-code-human-rights-calvin-hudson-mba

Knapp S. & VandeCreek L. (2003). An Overview of the Major Changes in the 2002 APA Ethics Code, Professional…