APA Ethics Code and Human Rights Protection in Psychology
This paper examines the relationship between the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code and the protection of human rights in psychological practice. Beginning with the origins of the APA code following World War II, the paper traces key revisions from the 2002 Ethics Code through the 2007 resolution against torture, the 2008 amendment, and the landmark 2010 language changes. Special attention is given to the Nuremberg Defense loophole exploited during post-9/11 detainee interrogations at facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, and how successive code revisions sought to eliminate ambiguity and strengthen psychologists' obligations to uphold fundamental human rights regardless of institutional authority.
- Introduction to Human Rights and the APA Ethics Code: Defines human rights and traces APA code origins
- Scope and Application of the APA Ethics Code: Outlines code scope, roles covered, and enforcement
- The 2002 Ethics Code and Its 2007 Resolution: Reviews 2002 code adoption and 2007 anti-torture resolution
- The Nuremberg Defense and Psychologist Involvement in Interrogations: Explains Nuremberg Defense loophole in post-9/11 context
- The 2010 Amendments and Their Significance: Details 2010 language changes closing ethical ambiguities
- Conclusion: Assesses code evolution as social and ethical progress
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper traces a clear chronological arc — from the post-WWII origins of the APA code through successive revisions — making a complex policy history easy to follow.
- It connects abstract ethical principles to a concrete historical controversy (post-9/11 detainee interrogations), grounding the argument in real-world consequences.
- The explanation of the Nuremberg Defense loophole is concise and well-situated within the broader argument about code ambiguity and enforcement.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses policy tracing — systematically following how a professional code evolved in response to external pressures and internal critique. Each revision (2007, 2008, 2010) is contextualized against a specific triggering event, showing students how to analyze institutional documents as living, socially responsive texts rather than static rules.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining human rights and situating the APA code historically, then narrows to the code's scope and application, then moves chronologically through revisions. The Nuremberg Defense section serves as the analytical centerpiece, explaining why the pre-2010 code was vulnerable to exploitation. The conclusion ties the 2010 amendments back to the broader theme of social progress in professional ethics. Approximately six thematic sections; moderate citation density consistent with undergraduate-level work.
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).
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.