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 establishes an ethical obligation for association members to report acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (Chronicle of Higher Education)
This sounds like a strong statement but it fell short of both the APA and AMA policies, which do not allow participation in military interrogations, such as those at Guantanamo Bay.
The Psychologists' position was crafted by a ten member committee, sic of whom had ties to the military, four at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib or in Afghanistan:
APA president Gerald Koocher, who handpicked the task-force members along with the organization's former president Ronald Levant, said in an interview that the psychologists' military and national-security backgrounds did not raise conflict of interest or broader questions about the task force and its report. He defended choosing psychologists with such backgrounds, saying "they had special knowledge to contribute."
[snip]
Some psychologists go so far as to wonder if the APA has allowed its interrogation policy to be set by the military. "The military seemed to be very well represented on that committee," Reisner said. "This issue, which is never spoken about, is the relationship between the American Psychological Association and the military. This has been in the back of my mind throughout this whole debate.
[snip]
"I think it is wrong to use one's professional knowledge in the service of breakdown -- breaking people down," author and psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton said in a phone call from his home at Cape Cod, Mass. He called the psychological association's willingness to participate in interrogations "wrong." Lifton added, "Even though they do not take the Hippocratic oath, they are in the healing profession."
In defense of his association's position, Koocher pointed out that many psychologists are behavioral scientists, and as such aren't caregivers. The APA president cited examples such as psychologists who evaluate people's competence to stand trial or who train hostage negotiators.
To underscore the difference between caregiver and interrogation consultant, the APA's ethics principles bar the same person from performing both functions, stating that psychologists should "refrain from engaging in such multiple relationships."(Salon)
As in, "My son, the interrogation consultant?"
In May the American Psychiatric Association's board of trustees and its assembly approved a statement affirming that it is not ethical for psychiatrists and psychologists to participate in the interrogation of prisoners in camps such as Guantanamo. The policy statement that "no psychiatrist should participate directly" seems even broader when one considers what the APA considers "direct participation":
- Psychiatrists should not be present at interrogations.
- They should not ask or suggest questions.
- They should not advise on techniques of interrogation. (MedPage Today)
The US Army Medical Department had no immediate response as to how it would affect military policy but said it was "actively discussing" the statement. The APA President said it wasn't an "ethical rule" (why not?) so psychiatrists wouldn't get in trouble with the organization for violating it.
The psychiatrists got involved because the role of healers in interrogation has become a topic in the medical profession. In June, the American Medical Association followed suit, adopting guidelines that made it unethical for physicians to participate in the interrogation such as those held at Guantanamo or other US facilities. This was in direct contradiction to "guidelines" drafted by the Department of Defense which found o ethical obstacle to doctors actively participating in interrogations. The AMA was the third medical organization to make participation in interrogations objectionable activities, joining the APA and the World Medical Association.
Human rights activists were obviously approving:
"The AMA acted today to defend the basic principles of medical ethics and to protect the men and women bravely serving our country as military health personnel," stated Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD (USA-Ret), an advisor for Physicians for Human Rights. "Since 2001, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon has been engaged in a full frontal assault on the basic standards of medical and military ethics, from the Hippocratic Oath to the Geneva Conventions. All the major medical associations are now standing together to demand that this administration respect the core values of both the health professional and the soldier." (Physicians for Human Rights)
Like the psychiatrists' policy, AMA prohibits doctors from participating directly, helping to plan or develop interrogation strategies or intervening in specific interrogations. There is some wiggle room for preparation of training materials separated from any particular detainee, and Physicians for Humans Rights joined others in asking the AMA to remove that remaining ambiguity as inconsistent with the doctor's role as healer.
It is a measure how far down this road our government has gone to induce very politically conservative professionals to object on ethical grounds. The AMA is not a progressive organization and has taken some very conservative political positions. At the same time, the Department of Defense's medical branch, under the command of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, William Winkenwerder, has shown how completely divorced it is from the ethics of the medical profession. They will never be tried like other war criminals because they don't work for a losing side.
Other than that, there isn't that much difference.
- Log in to post comments
The military ought not to have a hand in crafting a professional association's ethical policy - agreed.
But, help me out, are you saying that in addition to disagreeing with the use of physical torture, you disagree with the use of any and all psychological tactics for extracting information?
Steve: Not necessarily. It depends how (threatening families, for example, I consider out of bounds). Good cop, bad cop techniques would seem to be legitimate (assuming of course the bad cop wasn't out of bounds) and probably others. We all use psychological techniques to get information, so it covers a broad territory.
Soldz: .... Bad faith and distortions from the American Psychological Association.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10903
an insider. long. worthwhile. see also:
Psychologists, Guantánamo, and Torture: A Profession Struggles to Save Its Soul
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10700
gives a wider perspective.
These difficulties show that the traditional barriers between healers, or carers, and warriors are breaking down. Other examples are attacks on the Red Cross in Iraq, the shooting of ambulances in Gaza, the holding up of doctors in hospitals in Iraq; as well as US soldiers delivering medication or bringing expectant mothers to hospital.
Of course, one need only think of the Nazis to find examples of doctors who did exceedingly nasty things. Such transgressions have probably existed since forever. But such examples, I feel, represent role change: Doctor becomes torturer, sadist, he is no longer a doctor, but part of the military. His skills remain, but his official position is that of an embed, of someone who adheres to military code and military objectives.
What is new is the attempt to make professional ethics in (some) healing profession(s) a general principle, legalised, applying to all on the basis of texts, congruent with military, rather than 'medical' objectives. People's professional roles are to be subsumed to their national (tribe, etc.) belonging. Those who attack the Red Cross hold the same vision: it is not the activity or the professional acts that are used for definition; rather nationality or provenance, the fact that the people are 'westerners' and thus 'enemies', fair game. Overall, it is a march towards nationalism, sectarianism; and the US is the prime mover in having this stance slowly become officially accepted, law and/or natural custom.
Gvmts have co-opted the humanitarians, without much difficulty it has to be said. The US army has legitimised its actions with propaganda about its humanitarian role - hearts and flowers and rebuilding schools in Iraq. That the armed branch would go a little bit further and incorporate the stupidest, weakest, and most needy carers, that is psychologists, with their full or partial, or hesitant complicity, is hardly surprising.
What troubles me the most about this whole discussion is that we are having it in this country because there is a dire need for it. I'm 55 years old, I spent '69-'74 active Army with a tour in Germany at a time when I couldn't travel everywhere I wanted because there was the distinct possiblity that the "Dark Side" might want to know what I knew because of my clearance...things like this did happen.
I never thought I would live long enough to see, and believe, that in fact my country, the USA, had become that "Dark Side". I suppose the high side here is that through the continued efforts of people like the Reveres we are able to have this discussion at all.
There is a solution...force from office this facist cabal and with them will go all of this darkness that they have given rise to. October 5, 2006...The World Can't Wait!
It is strange Americans do not understand this torture system could easily be turned on them. If there is a bird flu pandemic, the British government has announced it may be necessary to declare martial law and quarantine the cities. The same could happen in the US
And if you oppose the imposition of martial law, and you use violence to stop it, it is possible you could be tortured to find our where your friends are.
I just wanted to add that many people in the US do not believe there will be a bird flu pandemic. But Bush last October stated if there is a pandemic, it may be necessary to use the military for quarantine purposes. Of course not everyone will want to be quarantined.
It is impossible to know if there will be a pandemic, but evidence regarding the most recent death in Indonesia from bird flu, a woman named Akira from South Sulawesi Province; and many other recent deaths in Indonesia, indicate the link to domestic poultry may not even exist. The human cases may be coming from a source other than domestic poultry.
And if it is not known even know from what source these human bird flu infections are originating, how can the spread of the disease in humans be slowed down? All the human energy is concentrated on killing sick chickens, but if they are not the source, what good does it do?
Most of the psychologists I know are appalled at this stance by the organization, and there are petitions circulating about it, and a discussion about it was to be held at the annual mtg last month. Not sure if sny progress has been made.
The issues seem pretty clear to me, don't participate. Period.