"Enhanced" interrogation of detainees: do psychologists and psychiatrists participate?

After revelations of participation by psychiatrists and psychologists in interrogation of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency secret detention centers, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association adopted Position Statements absolutely prohibiting their members from participating in torture under any and all circumstances, and, to a limited degree, forbidding involvement in interrogations. Some interrogations utilize very aggressive techniques determined to be torture by many nations and organizations throughout the world. This paper explains why psychiatrists and psychologists involved in coercive interrogations violate the Geneva Conventions and the laws of the United States. Whether done with ignorance of professional ethical obligations or not, these psychiatrists and psychologists have crossed an ethical barrier that may best be averted from re-occurring by teaching medical students and residents in all medical specialties about the ethics principles stemming from the 1946–1947 Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions, together with the Ethics Codes of the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association; and, with regard to psychiatric residents and psychological trainees, by the teaching about The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry and the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, respectively. In this way, all physicians and psychologists will clearly understand that they have an absolute moral obligation to "First, do no harm" to the human beings they professionally encounter.     

Healers or Interrogators: Psychology and the United States Torture Regime

United States abuses at Guantánamo and other detention centers, including the CIA's “Black Sites,“ have a long history. In the Cold War period, the CIA pursued an extensive research program on “coercive interrogations,“ which became codified in torture manuals used to train Latin American military leaders who utilized torture against their populations. Also during the Cold War, the U.S. military developed the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program to train U.S. military personnel in resisting torture. When the U.S. government turned to torture after 9/11, they turned to SERE psychologists to develop their interrogations strategies. This occurred, first at the CIA secret Black Sites, and then at Guantánamo and elsewhere. Psychologists helped develop, implement, and standardize U.S. torture techniques. The American Psychological Association (APA), rather than oppose this use of psychologists, provided cover for U.S. interrogation abuses. They formed a task force on Psychological Ethics and National Security—stacked with a majority of members from the military-intelligence establishment, several with possible involvement in abusive interrogations. This task force supported psychologist participation in detainee interrogations. Various APA antitorture statements since then have not changed APA's pro-participation stance. As a result, a movement of psychologists arose to oppose these APA policies.     

Interrogating the ethics of operational psychology

Commissioned amidst allegations of collusion between American Psychological Association officials and Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense officials involved in the enhanced interrogation programme, the July 2015 Hoffman Report documented a decade of collusion between American Psychological Association and Department of Defense officials in unethical national security interrogations. However, interrogation support is but one of numerous areas where psychologists are directly aiding military and intelligence operations, an area known as operational psychology. The ethical issues posed by the larger field of operational psychology have received little public discussion apart from apologia by operational psychologists themselves. To stimulate public review of operational psychology, leaders of the movement to remove psychologists from national security interrogations convened, in September 2015, a group of experts to work towards a consensus set of principles to guide future discussion. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social scientists; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and military health and intelligence professionals. The workshop produced “The Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology,” with implications for the profession of psychology and for civil society.     

The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights.     

Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2007: minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives and minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors

Provides the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives February 16-18, 2007, Washington, DC, and August 9 and 13, 2007, San Francisco, CA, and minutes of the February, June, August, and December 2007 meetings of the Board of Directors. These minutes are the official record of the actions of the American Psychological Association taken during the year by both the Board of Directors (the Board) and the Council of Representatives (Council). The main topical headings are I. Minutes of Meetings; II. Elections, Awards, Membership, and Human Resources; III. Ethics; IV. Board of Directors; V. Divisions and State, Provincial, and Territorial Psychological Associations; VI. Organization of the APA; VII. Publications and Communications; VIII. Convention Affairs; IX. Educational Affairs; X. Professional Affairs; XI. Scientific Affairs; XII. Public Interest; XIII. Ethnic Minority Affairs; XIV. International Affairs; XV. Central Office; and XVI. Financial Affairs.     

“We Didn’t Know”: Silence and Silencing in Organizations

This article examines the dynamic processes within organizations that contribute to systemic silence and silencing and the “we didn’t know” defense, particularly for those groups in which secrecy replaces transparency to the detriment of the organization and its members. The events of the past more than 10 years within the American Psychological Association (APA) surrounding the role of psychologists in interrogation of detainees, including advising on and monitoring interrogations that have been construed as torture, will serve as a case example of the systemic forces that may contribute to leading an organization away from its principal mission. I explore how what was done was turned into its opposite. That is: “We are protecting psychologists by providing them with ethical guidelines in detention centers with detainees” became the explanatory rubric for a position that violated the association’s stated mission and exposed the organization and individual members to public shame. In addition, I explore how self-silencing becomes a way of adapting to a culture that censures dissent.     

The “Good” Psychologist, “Good” Torture,and “Good” Reputation—Response to O’Donohue,Snipes, Dalto,Soto, Maragakis,and Im (2014) “The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture”

O’Donohue et al. (2014) sought to derive, from classical ethical theories, the ethical obligation of psychologists to assist “enhanced interrogations and torture” (EIT) in national defense scenarios under strict EIT criteria. They asked the American Psychological Association to adopt an ethics code obligating psychologists to assist such EIT and to uphold the reputation of EIT psychologists. We contest the authors’ ethical analyses as supports for psychologists’ forays into torture interrogation when (if ever) the EIT criteria obtain. We also contend that the authors’ application of these ethical analyses violates the Geneva Conventions, contravenes military doctrine and operations, and undermines psychology as a profession. We conclude that “good” public reputation is not owed to, or expected by, “good” intelligence professionals, and collaborating operational psychologists must share their providence.     

Psychological organizations in the United States

The organizations to which psychologists belonged at the turn of the 20th century were identified. The attributes of the meetings and the membership of those organizations were compared and discussed. In addition to the American Psychological Association, psychologists belonged to the American Philosophical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science as well as to local and regional organizations. In addition, some psychologists belonged to the Society of Experimental Psychology, but membership in that organization was by invitation only. The topics presented at the meetings of the psychological and philosophical associations often were identical or very similar, and the clear disciplinary separation that is typical in 2000 was rare in 1900.     

The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture: A Reappraisal of the Argument

This article critically reviews what is known about the ethical status of psychologists’ putative involvement with enhanced interrogations and torture (EITs). We examine three major normative ethical accounts (utilitarian, deontic, and virtue ethics) of EITs and conclude, contra the American Psychological Association, that reasonable arguments can be made that in certain cases the use of EITs is ethical and even, in certain circumstances, morally obligatory. We suggest that this moral question is complex as it has competing moral values involved, that is, the humane treatment of detainee competes with the ethical value/duty/virtue of protecting innocent third parties. We also suggest that there is an ethical duty to minimize harm by making only judicious and morally responsible allegations against the psychologists alleged to be involved in EITs. Finally, we make recommendations regarding completing the historical record, improvements in the professional ethics code, and the moral treatment of individuals accused in this controversy.     

Medical Center Politics and Decisions: A Discussion

Presented as part of a symposium at the 1996 American Psychological Association Convention in Toronto, Canada, this paper reflects an historical overview of the political issues faced by psychologists in academic medical centers. Ivan Mensh, Ph.D., senior psychologist and founding member of the Association of Medical School Psychologists, suggests that those psychologists involved in medical education should learn who the decision makers are and how decisions are made at academic medical centers in order better to assure the continued viability of psychology in those settings.     

Making Sense of the APA: A History of the Relationship Between Psychology and the Military

The American Psychological Association (APA) has been steadfast in its position that psychologists must have the right to participate in interrogations in U.S.-run illegal detention centers. One wonders why the APA is so resolute in this view especially in light of the opposition to involvement in these sites by all other relevant professional organizations. This paper offers an answer to this question by means of an exploration of the historical bond between American psychology and the military. It is demonstrated that the dramatic growth of psychology after World War II is attributable to resources supplied by the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. It is argued that the historical and current dependency of psychology on the military for research funds as well as clinical training and treatment has resulted in a historical and current debt on the part of psychology to both of these organizations. This debt is repaid by an unquestioned endorsement of military policy, no matter how questionable its ethical or legal basis might be.     

Ethical principles of the American Psychological Association: an argument for philosophical and practical ranking

Unlike the American Psychological Association (APA), the Canadian Psychological Association has adopted a code of ethics in which principles are organized in order of importance. The validity of this hierarchical organization has received some empirical and theoretical support. We conducted a theoretical analysis that revealed conceptual justification for a ranking of the 6 principles in the APA code. Such a ranking could assist psychologists in making more informed and consistent moral choices when confronted with ethical dilemmas that involve conflicts among principles.     

Ethical social justice: Do the ends justify the means?

This article offers an ethical decision‐making model, informed by community psychology values, as a means for guiding psychologists when engaging in social justice‐oriented work. The applicability of this model is demonstrated through a case analysis elucidating how America's psychologists individually and collectively arrived at the decision to endorse torture—ostensibly as a means for preventing terrorism. Critics have wondered how the American Psychological Association succumbed to these involvements, and how to prevent such ethical lapses in the future. Unfortunately, the American Psychological Association's ethical codes fail to provide explicit guidance for psychologists' involvement in social justice work that impacts communities and systems. To address this gap, we present a values‐driven, ethical decision‐making framework that may be used to guide psychologists' future practices. This framework infuses fundamental community psychology values (i.e., caring and compassion; health; self‐determination and participation, human diversity, social justice; and critical reflexivity) into a 9‐step model.     

The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of Medical School Psychologists: Finding Psychology’s Place in Academic Medicine

This paper highlights the role of the Association of Medical School Psychologists (AMSP) as a bridge between academic medicine and psychology. AMSP’s affiliation with Division 12 of the American Psychological Association is discussed, but the primary focus is AMSP’s affiliation with the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the AAMC’s Council of Academic Societies (CAS). The history, structure, activities, and goals of AAMC and CAS are examined. AMSP’s affiliation with AAMC is important for psychologists in medical schools and academic medical centers, and for psychology in general, because AAMC is the major voice of academic medicine in the US. AAMC activities affect medical education at all levels, as well as research and health services at academic medical centers, and health care policy at the national level. AMSP’s dual affiliation with AAMC’s CAS and APA’s Society of Clinical Psychology will increase psychology’s visibility and influence in academic medical centers and enhance the two-way flow of ideas and information between academic medicine and psychology.     

Partnerships with Psychiatry and Other Clinical Disciplines: A Key to Psychology's Success in U.S. Medical Schools

This paper describes the growth of psychology in medical schools and the distribution of psychologists across medical school departments. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and American Psychological Association (APA) use different data collection approaches that reflect their different missions. AAMC focuses solely on medical school faculty, whereas APA tries to reach all psychologists working in academic health centers (AHCs). The number of psychologists in medical school settings has increased, largely due to their research expertise; but psychologists also contribute through teaching and clinical service. Psychologists hold appointments in wide variety of medical school departments, which has been a key factor in their success. Through partnership and interdisciplinary collaboration with a wide range of academic physicians, psychologists have gained increased support, become valued members of the AHC and medical school communities, and can rise to leadership positions in medical schools.     

History of the Association of Medical School Psychologists (AMSP), 1982–2005

This paper presents a brief history of the Association of Medical School Psychologists (AMSP) from the Association’s beginning in 1982 to the present day. Prior to 1982, there had been several unsuccessful efforts to form an association that would represent psychologists in academic medical centers. Attempts by psychiatry to limit the growing number and influence of psychologists in medical schools created a sense of threat among psychologists that catalyzed the formation of the Association. Membership was initially restricted to one senior psychologist from each medical school, a restriction that limited AMSP’s development, but AMSP later opened its doors to all academic medical center psychologists. The Association was rebuffed in initial efforts to join the Association of American Medical Colleges, and at a later date, to become a Division of the American Psychological Association (APA). In time, however, AMSP did establish formal ties to both of those organizations, and it has collaborated with APA in important surveys of academic medical center psychologists. Following a period in the late 1990’s when AMSP seemed likely to lose its way, the Association rebounded. AMSP now has an Administrative Director, a stable home base, and revised bylaws that assure greater stability and continuity of leadership. These developments, in conjunction with a strong working relationship with the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, have positioned AMSP to grow and more effectively serve the community of psychologists who work in academic medical centers.     

DEVELOPING MULTICULTURAL ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PSYCHOLOGY

While psychologists have recognized the importance of cultural differences in many areas, multicultural ethical guidelines for psychology are still lacking. This article will review some of the controversial issues that cultural differences raise and discuss literature published on multicultural ethics. The existing American Psychological Association Ethical Principles will be reviewed with suggestions for specific changes to meet the needs of a multicultural society.     

American psychology,and the needs for transcendence and community

In this its centennial year the American Psychological Association has reason to take satisfaction from its past accomplishments. However, as psychologists we know that our view of our history has some self-serving aspects. There have been some errors of commission and omission. In this paper one of those errors of omission is discussed: the significance of religion, especially of the fundamentalist variety, for understanding the modern psyche. This omission is viewed from a historical perspective in which the relationship between the needs for transcendence and community underwent a fracturing that has had troublesome consequences both for religious and nonreligious people. The nature of those needs are illustrated in the ideas and writings of two people separated by 2500 years: Socrates and B. F. Skinner. This paper was delivered by Professor Sarason as an invited address to the American Psychological Association in celebration of it centennial in Washington DC, August 1992. The editor is particularly pleased that Dr. Sarason chose to publish his address in this journal.     

One hundred years of experimental psychology: An American perspective

Summary At the 1979 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association a special series of twenty-two symposia and lectures was devoted to the theme of A Century of Psychology as Science: Retrospections and Assessments. The speakers in this series, including many major psychologists, were charged with giving historical overviews and critical evaluations of various aspects of the first century of experimental psychology. This article, written by one of the organizers of this centennial program, presents an analysis of and commentary on the views expressed by these speakers.I would like to thank Professor Sigmund Koch with whom I served as co-organizer of the centennial program and with whom I am now co-editing a selection of the centennial papers. Since this article is based upon oral presentations and to-this-date unpublished papers, I have chosen not to give direct quotations. Nor have I made direct references to the individual paper titles in the text. These can all be found in the reference section where, for economy's sake, I have given only authors and titles. The repeated acknowledgment that each of the papers was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York City, September 1–5, 1979, seems unnecessary.