Psychology Group Scuttles Proposed Ban on Aiding Military Interrogations

i-99978d349f2620e3a7031272f223ce0d-APA.jpegHard to know what to make of href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3499544">this.
 The American Psychological Association considered a proposal
to ban participation in military interrogations.
 Specifically, APA members would have been prohibited from
assisting in interrogations "in which detainees are deprived of
adequate protection of their human rights."



The APA national meeting is being held in San Fransisco this year.
 In a session 19 August 2007, they chose not to ban
all participation.  Instead, they adopted a substitute motion.
  href="http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/notorture0807.html">Substitute
Motion #3 reaffirms their opposition to torture.
 However, it stops short of the restrictive measures that href="http://www.ethicalapa.com/">some href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/letter-2007-08-06.html">medical
href="http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002416">and
humanitarian
groups
had called for.




More like this

Ever since the inception of the Global and Perpetual War on Terror, there has been concern about the role of professionals with training in psychology and psychiatry in the design, conduct, and interpretation of torture programs. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) banned such participation…
Hats off to fellow blogger Stephen Soldz and his colleagues, leaders of a coalition within the American Psychological Association that campaigned to put the APA on record declaring participation in torture interrogations at US prisons at Guantanamo Bay and similar prison camps an unethical breach…
One of my colleagues (a clinical psychologist) was once asked the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. "You have to understand," he said, "that a psychiatrist doesn't have a PhD." It turns out there is at least one more difference. The professional association of psychiatrists have…
In late July the American Psychological Association went in the same direction, but only a fraction of the distance, as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association by adopting a resolution prohibiting its members from engaging in or offering training in torture and…

As it is, the language is pretty strong. My guess is that when you come down to talking about human rights, this can be a difficult call, legally, psychologically, or morally, when you consider that you are talking about prisoners. The motion as worded allows the psychologist to have his own mind about this.

Torture on the other hand, is pretty strongly condemned, as it should be, and it's good that they didn't allow for Presidential discretion about what constitutes torture.

So once again, I think the media made more out of this than there is -- perhaps they didn't actually read the motion (or understand it).