APA Ethics Code and Human Rights Protection in Psychology

Introduction to Human Rights and the APA Ethics Code

Human rights have been defined as rights granted to every person by virtue of their humanity. The protection of these rights should be a priority for every practicing psychologist, because doing so enables the psychologist to contribute meaningfully to the improvement of society. In essence, human rights are basic, fundamental ethical and moral principles that set minimum standards for treating others and for regulating behavior (Hudson, 2015).

Governments are obligated to legally enforce these rights, and every individual — by the mere fact of being human — is entitled to them, wherever in the world they may live. Immediately after the end of World War II, a movement emerged that advocated for the formal adoption of human rights protections. Not long after, in 1953, the American Psychological Association (APA) developed its own code for the ethical conduct of practitioners in the field (Hudson, 2015). Even though the first Ethics Code drafted by the association spanned over 150 pages, the current code is considerably more concise and focused. This shortening of the code of conduct reflects, to some degree, the change in societal attitudes regarding ethics over the same period of time (Smith, 2003).

Scope and Application of the APA Ethics Code

The APA Ethics Code applies only to activities in the field of psychology that are related to the educational, professional, or scientific roles of practitioners. These roles include: administration; forensic psychology; consulting services; educational psychology; conducting studies; social activities; the design of evaluation instruments; trainee supervision; and research and clinical psychology. The APA Ethics Code covers these and many other activities across different contexts, including one-on-one interactions, internet-based services, telephone, and postal communications. These professional activities are, however, to be distinguished from the private conduct of practitioners, as private conduct falls outside the scope of the code (Ethical Principles, n.d.).

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

Whenever a psychologist is making a decision about how to act professionally, he or she must take into account the Ethics Code along with other relevant laws and regulations established by the governing board. If a situation arises in which the Ethics Code prescribes a higher standard than what is legally required, the psychologist must meet the higher standard. If, in a different scenario, the psychologist's moral duty conflicts with regulations, laws, or other provisions set by a regulatory authority, he or she must honor a personal commitment to the code and act to resolve the conflict in a manner consistent with the fundamental principles of human rights (Ethical Principles, n.d.).

The 2002 Ethics Code and Its 2007 Resolution

After reviewing more than thirteen hundred comments and feedback submissions across seven drafts, in August 2002 the APA Council of Representatives unanimously adopted the final draft as the new Ethics Code (APA, 2002b; "A Code of Ethics," n.d.). Overall, the new Ethics Code represented a limited revision that retained the basic structure and the majority of principles from the prior 1992 Ethics Code (APA, 1992; Knapp & VandeCreek, 2003).

In 2007, the APA Council of Representatives convened and resolved to change the association's official position on human torture and other forms of cruel punishment. Drawing on the Resolution Against Torture (2006), the APA expressed its concern regarding the denial of fundamental human rights to people held in prisons and detention centers. In its 2007 resolution, the APA called upon psychologists to refuse to work in settings where torture was taking place (Okorodudu, Strickland, Van Hoorn & Wiggins, 2007). Moreover, the association expressed strong opposition to the use of torture during interrogations and formally petitioned the United States government to end such practices.

In 2008, the language of the 2007 resolution was amended to include text calling for the removal of psychology practitioners from environments in which detainees were being deprived of human rights, except in cases where those professionals were directly engaged in protecting such rights (APA, 2009).

Although the 2007 resolution and its 2008 enhancement were steps in the right direction toward improving the 2002 Ethics Code, they were still insufficient, and the language remained open to differing interpretations (Hudson, 2015). In 2010, the APA Council of Representatives again attempted to address the problems within the ethics code by adopting revised language aimed at eliminating ambiguity and thereby reducing the risk of misinterpretation (APA, 2010).

Conclusion

The updated Ethics Code of 2010 signifies a profession that is growing socially and ethically relative to the standards reflected in the 2002 code. By addressing the problems embedded in the earlier code, the association gained a clear voice to condemn the federal government's cruel interrogation tactics. The evolution from the 2002 code through the 2007 resolution, the 2008 amendment, and the 2010 language changes reflects a broader social reckoning with the consequences of ethical ambiguity. As the code becomes more enforceable and less susceptible to exploitation, it better fulfills its foundational purpose: ensuring that psychologists, in all professional contexts, remain committed to the protection of fundamental human rights.

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 Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(3), 301–308.

Okorodudu, C., Strickland, W. J., Van Hoorn, J. L., & Wiggins, E. C. (2007, November). A call to action: APA's 2007 resolution against torture. Monitor on Psychology, 38(10), 22.

Pope, K. S. & Gutheil, T. G. (2009, May–June). Psychologists abandon the Nuremberg ethic: Concerns for detainee interrogations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(4), 161–166.

Smith, D. (2003, January). The first code. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1), 63.