Ethics, Torture and Psychological Issues

Ethics, Torture and Psychological Issues

(BOTH

Who is the chairman of the APA Ethics Committee and under what circumstances should a professional consultation be sought?

The American Psychological Association Ethics committee has the power to receive, initiate and investigate reports of unethical conduct to members of the profession; to recommend or dismiss action on such incidents; to formulate rules and principles of ethics as they surround the profession; and to interpret, apply and administer any rules regarding ethical behavior and professional psychology. The current Chair of the committee is Dr. Nadya Fouad of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and there are seven other standing members of the committee (American Psychological Association, 2012, par. 3).

The Ethics Code applies only to psychologists 'activities that are part of their scientific, educational or professional roles -- clinical practice, counseling, research, teaching, supervision, etc. Procedures for the filing, investigating and resolving complaints are outlined in the Rules and Procedures section of the Ethics Committee, which allow for sanctions on the violation of any standard. Professionally, a consultation focuses on issues that violate the standards of the code or information comes to the committee that a felony has been committed. Thus, there is a duality in striving for ethical behavior in the profession: adherence to any legal statute as well as being mindful of the standards of morality and ethics subscribed by the profession (American Psychological Association, 2001, 1.1-2; 2.1). This may, at times, form a conflict of interest in the sense that professional psychologists are employed by law enforcement, the military, and/or governmental agencies that have competing agendas with some of the strict healing paradigms of psychology.

Part 2 -- Commenting on the strengths and limitations of the Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, should psychologists participate in prisoner interrogation of U.S. Military detainees? Does the report give contrary information?

In 2005, a Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security found that psychologists could assist interrogations at detention sites like Guantanamo Bay, even though International Organizations like the Red Cross indicated that conditions similar to torture were occurring. However, the task force produced 12 statements that provide very clear direction on the idea of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. For psychologists, the ethical responsibly is clear:

Psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights… the development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for psychologists' work-related conduct requires a personal commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically [and] to encourage ethical behavior by & #8230; colleagues (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force, 2005, p.4).

In context, the Task Force noted that there are times in which there may be roles outside the traditional healthcare role in which psychologists are involved. However, it affirmed that "when psychologists serve in any position by virtue of their training, experience, and expertise as psychologist', the APA Ethics Code applies." Thus, a military officer must act first as a psychologist, then second as an officer for the profession, but must decide about the morality of their role within their government job (APA Task Force, pp. 4-5).

The APA Task Force report does contain some mixed messages and/or contradictions. On one hand it specifically states that there are clear roles for the psychological, and yet on the other hand they are asked to "clarify for themselves the identity of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their client" (APA Task Force, p.5). This implies that they have a primary duty to the detainee regarding exceptional morals and ethical behavior; but can use their knowledge also to counsel and inform others on the manner in which stress can be accentuated or cultural-based norms used for the benefit of the interrogator.

Part 3 -- What are the recent changes to APA public policy on the participation of psychologists in interrogation of U.S. military detainees?

Since the publication of the 2005 report, there have been a series of letters, comments, and even calls for a plenum and rescinding of the PENS report. In February 2010, for instance, the APA amended the ethical code to address issues of conflicts between the law or other legal authority and the APA, between ethics and organizational demands, and the central paradigm of duty to a patient and the Hippocratic Oath of "do no harm" (American Psychological Association, 2010, para. 3-4).

In terms of ethical conflicts the APA decided that it is the individual psychologists' ethical responsibility to make know that there is a conflict between ethics and duty, and to take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict. "Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights" (American Psychological Association, 2010, 1.02, 1.03). In addition, if the demands and job description of an organization that a psychologist is working or affiliated with provide a conflict of interest, the individual psychologist must take every step possible to clarify and make known the nature of that conflict and the potential solution. Previous to these two new additions, 1.02 and 1.03, if the psychologist could not resolve the conflict, they could adhere to the demands of the organization without further worry from the APA and their professional ethics (American Pscyhological Association, 2010, 1.02, 1.03).

Likely, the changes were done to resolve the ambiguity that allowed more individual interpretations of ethical guidelines, and the justification that an individual could use their military or employment obligations to subvert APA Ethical Codes. In addition, letters were written noting that:

Psychologists may not work in detention settings that violate international conventions against torture except if they are providing treatment to military personnel, or if they are working on behalf of detainees under the aegis of independent human rights organizations. At present, in 2011, psychologists continue to work on Behavioural Consultation Teams and as detainee counsellors in Guantanamo Bay in violation of the referendum (Aalbers, D., et.al., 2012, par. 6).

Part 4 -- Do professional ethics require psychologists to act solely for the benefit of the patient?

Generally speaking, professional ethics for psychologists cover dignity, equality, confidentiality, accountability, reputation, and expertise. This means that everyone is equal when it comes to treatment and that there must be continued confidentiality and no circumstances in which discrimination occurs -- for any reason. The psychologist is expected to be held accountable for any actions, and must remain true to their professional licence and ethics. One way of looking at this subject is to understand that military and governmental organizations that hire psychologists hired them because of their expertise. So, first and foremost, a psychologist is a professional and has the ethical duty to his or her profession (Ferguson & O'Donohue, 200, pp. 35-7).

One must also remember that as a member of the armed services, legal implications are different that civil law -- thus we see a dilemma in utilitarianism and deontology. The utilitarian view would hold that if the greatest good can be served, then the action is right; for deontology, it is the means or the path that sets the moral and ethical character of the action (White, 2009). For the professional psychologist, the APA's general principles respect the Dignity and world of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups (American Psychological Association, 2012, p.1).

Nothing is mentioned about changing ethical behaviors for non-citizens, criminals, detainees, or anyone else since the idea of ethics for the psychologist is to be objective and treat global citizens as humans.

Part 5 -- Do U.S. Policies and Interrogation Practices result in harm or benefit to the detainee?

After the Twin Towers and other 9/11 incidents, there have been a number of issues reported about the torture of detainees by U.S. military and secret service organizations. The public first learned about the horrific actions of the United States when the truths of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Most Americans are shocked by those horrendous and disturbing photographs of the abuse of prisoners broadcasted. When the humiliation of Abu Ghraib surfaced, the U.S. government argued that it was solely the work of a couple soldiers. However, the truth is that prisoner abuses have expanded with the soldiers knowing that it is possible for them to get away with such atrocious actions, making a detainees' position quite precarious (Hersh, 2007).

Soon, President Bush drew a lot of domestic and international criticisms for his choice of disregarding the Geneva Conventions provisions in the inhumane interrogation of detainees captured in Middle East. President Bush promised to protect Americans "against terror and lawless violence" (Bassiouni, 2010, p.45). Soon, Military Order of November 13, 2001 was signed by President Bush, which authorizes use of special military courts to try detainees in foreign countries. Even though the order promised prisoners would receive humane treatments, the Bush Administration said that Geneva Conventions was not applicable to them (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 39).

The Detainee Treatment Act, sponsored by Senator John McCain sponsored the Detainee Treatment Act, states that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider…an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." President Bush allowed the bill following a statement saying that he will interpret the bill " in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch, which will assist in achieving the shard objective of the Congress and the President of protecting the American people from future terrorist attacks" (Worthington, 2006, II-6).

Part 6 -- What is the appropriate ethical professional response of the military psychologists or psychologist consultants if U.S. Policies and Interrogation Practices are in violation of International Law or Human Rights?

Human rights are defined by the APA as rights to which all humans are entitled. In response to the violations of such rights during some of the 20th century, the international community established some basic laws that were meant to transcend other documents and provide a way to structure the issue. In a special vote, APA members approved a resolution that prohibits any psychologist from working in "detainee settings in which international law or the Constitution of the United States is violated" (Martin, 2008, par. 1).

The 2005 Task Force Report noted that psychologists have a professional responsibility to society as well as the individaul. Ethically, they must assist in protection our nation and innocent civilians from harm, which at times means they must assist in extracting information. However, modifications and referendums put in place indicate "it is a clear violation of professional ethics for a psychologist to have played a role in the torture of CIA detainees" (American Psychological Association, 2009, par. 1). In addition, the central paradigm of a pscyhologists role, they are required to let their supervisor know of conflicts in ethics, and/or to document these conflicts for the APA. The standards require the psychologist to make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, take reaspoable stepts to resolve the conlifct, and, while acting in the law, strive to perform their duties ethically. In fact, in a letter dated June 21, 2010, the Senior Policy Advisor and the Ethics Office Director of the APA wrote to Jeh Charles Johnson, the Department of Defense's General Counsel outlining the new ethical standards and noting, [W]e emphasize APA's poisition that it is not permissible for psychologists to have any involvement in abusive interrogations or to work in unlawful detention settings that violate the U.S. Constitution or international law…. The APA Ethics code makes it clear there is no defense under the Code for violating a detainee's human rights (Garrison & Behnke, 2010, par. 3).

Part 7 -- How would the military/secret service culture of interrogation affect the ability of the consulting psychologist to locate and adhere to ethical principles, practices and boundaries?

In essence, a member of the APA cannot really work in a military or secret service culture of interrogation as a consulting psychologist. Whether the use of strong interrogation tactics is legal or not, they do violate several International principles of human rights, and are therefore unacceptable to APA members. An APA member may, though, act as a consulting psychologist act to counsel service personnel or in the direct form of human rights and/or mental health for detainees. The issue is that the psychologist may not use their professional role to aid in any interrogation method that might be construed as illegal or inhumane (Behnke, 2007, p.4)