Ethics unit discussion board topics

¶ … Code of Ethics & Military Interrogation of Detainees

Merits, Demerits & Biases of Task Force on Psychological Ethics

Changes in APA Public Policy

Boundaries of the APA Ethical Principles and Psychologists' Involvement in Military Interrogation

APA Code of Conduct & Rights of Patients / Clients

Impact of U.S. Policies on Detainees

Effect of Military Interrogation Culture on Psychologists

Conflicts between U.S. Law & International Law

APA Code of Ethics and Military Interrogation of Detainees

United States interrogation policies and rules regarding detainees have been greatly criticized after discovery of "black site" prisons outside the territory of United States. Where American Psychological Association (APA) has extended its cooperation to law and order agencies with reference to interrogation of war detainees, APA regulations and code of ethics have been receiving a great deal of criticism not only from psychologists and human rights associations. There is a serious concern about the objectivity and effectiveness of Psychologists when they are involved in interrogation sessions of international detainees, performed by law and order agencies like Pentagon and CIA as these sessions have found to be immensely inhumane and brutal which violates the fundamentality of APA code of ethics and international law.

The chair of APA ethics committee is Linda M. Forest (APA Ethics Committee, 2012). Considering the nature of usual scenarios of ethical conflicts faced by Military and intelligence personnel, ethical consultation should be sought when the ethics conflict with the objectives (and subsequent course of action) of the activities undertaken by these personnel with reference to the APA Ethical principles and code of conduct related to resolving of issues. According to APA standards "misuse of psychologists work, conflicts between ethics and law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, conflicts between ethics and organizational demands, reporting ethical violence," are the areas requiring professional consultation from Ethics Committee (2010, para. 1).

Compliance to ethical Psychological in interrogation settings has been concern for APA authorities lately. and, considering the implications of interrogations methods on psychologists, it has been declared that psychologists shall not be present during interrogation sessions involving torture and, physical and mental abuse. The American Psychological Association (APA) has issued various public statements condemning torture as unethical and unacceptable, yet it has chosen not to make these statements enforceable on its own membership through inclusion in the enforceable section of its ethics code (Pope, 2008).

Merits, Demerits & Biases of Task Force on Psychological Ethics

Considering the merits and demerits of APA PENS Report (2005), the Code of Ethics has set clear boundaries within which a psychologist may operate however it fails to define the measures through which a psychologist may preserve his/her objectivity, competence and effectiveness. The PENS report clearly states "psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality and do not act beyond their competencies. In addition to that, psychologists clarify for themselves the identity of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their clients (APA, 2005, p.7)." Furthermore, the report has also declared that the psychologist must remain aware of his/her role during interrogation or during circumstances where the role is subject to ambiguity. But the issue is that in circumstances where a body of different professionals is employed to given an opinion or performs a certain task, psychologist's awareness of personal role has a limited scope in comparison to the group's judgment. Therefore, adherence to Statement 5 of this report fails to entail any details as how the psychologist should preserve his individuality.

Where the report clearly defines the code of ethics of Psychologist and also elaborates the nature of role that can be performed by the psychologist (not a medical care-giver), the report does not address the major issue: how a psychologist would address the confidentiality issue and also how he/she would refrain the military authorities from drawing necessary information out of medical records available to the psychologist. Principle 2 of these twelve statements directs the psychologists not to engage in, direct, support, facilitate or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment but principle 7 directs that the psychologists may serve in various national security-related roles (PENS, 2005). This ambiguity levied greater amount of stress on the psychologists present during interrogations Situations where the authorization from appropriate authority has been taken for torture and human abuse, psychologists are not provided with any guidelines for a recommended course of action.

a) Changes in APA Public Policy

According to several changes made in APA Public policy with relation to the role of psychologists in the interrogations session, APA has prohibited its psychologists from taking part in the varied torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading interrogation techniques by stating, "No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees (Pope, 2008, Psychologists at the Center of the Controversy)." Furthermore, it was asserted through referendum which took place in 2008 that psychologists must not operate outside territories which are under the jurisdiction of international law such as Guantanamo, Bagram, or the CIA or JSOC "black site" prisons, and also shall not participate in interrogations that are violation to the international law. Also, the removal of Section 1.02 was also a major amendment in APA code of ethics (Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, 2010). This section earlier allowed the members to give preference to orders when orders and ethics conflicted. This clause has been forfeited now.

Boundaries of the APA Ethical Principles and Psychologists' Involvement in Military Interrogation

As mentioned by Soldz (2009), "Like so many other institutions over the years since 9/11, the APA built its policies on psychologist involvement in interrogation upon a public foundation of denial of, rather than a grappling with, reality (p.139)." However, APA has taken measures later, to ensure that APA guidelines do not support any violation of human rights by ensuring that the psychologists report any inhumane behavior that they witness as mentioned earlier. But increasing influence of Pentagon and CIA on APA has made it difficult for the Psychologists to report it to any authority. Reporting such incidences would result in compromising their membership and will also endanger their career as the alliance to bodies like APA, is mandatory for further practice. This concern was addressed by APA. The earlier taskforce which mainly comprised of Psychologists from Military has been replaced by a new body which now constitutes of members from APA's Division 48, the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence. (Kaye, 2012).

APA Code of Conduct & Rights of Patients / Clients

Apparently, the APA code of conduct mainly protects the clients of the psychologists by adhering to definition of human rights as defined by United Nations. According to APA's statement on human rights (1987), APA supports United Nations in defending and promoting human rights and undertaking to commend the main UN human rights instruments and documents to the attention of its boards, committees, and membership at large.