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 rejected the idea it is ethical for a medical doctor to be complicit in interrogation abuse or abusive conditions under which interrogations are conducted. The professional association of psychologists have twice declined to take that step. I think that's a more telling difference than the nature of their degrees.
Here are some of the details:
The American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives voted on Sunday to affirm an "absolute prohibition against psychologists' knowingly planning, designing, and assisting in the use of torture and any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."The resolution, which was adopted during the association's annual meeting here, also says that psychologists in government service who have knowledge of torture or human-rights violations must report that information to their superiors.
Sunday's vote came after several months of debate about psychologists' alleged roles in designing coercive and degrading interrogation systems used at U.S. detention centers in Iraq, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at so-called black sites operated in Europe and elsewhere by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Critics have argued that the psychological association's interrogation-related ethics policies have been much less stringent than the policies adopted by other professional groups, notably the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association.
[snip]
The resolution lists more than a dozen techniques that are specifically prohibited, including "sexual humiliation," "the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information," and "exposure to extreme heat or cold." (Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required]
It is not only participation in torture that is at issue, however. It is also designing torture. One program that has "benefitted" from the expertise of psychologists is the reverse engineering of an older military program designed to each captured US soldiers how to resist interrogation. The program was called Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) and was meant to help personnel captured behind enemy lines survive. It was never meant to prevent release of information:
SERE specialists "were trained in what used to be called the Communist interrogation model," Mr. [Steven M. Kleinman, a retired U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel] said. "That's what we thought was the worst-case scenario for our young men and women if they were detained by a foreign power. SERE was never, and I repeat never, designed as a method of effectively gathering intelligence." It was nonsensical, Mr. Kleinman said, for such techniques to be introduced in interrogations of suspected terrorists.
The fact that the American Psychological Association couldn't bring themselves to do what two very mainstream professional bodies of the medical profession have already done -- and make no mistake, the American Medical Association is no liberal think tank -- speaks volumes about forces within the APA that distort the ethical mission of the profession it allegedly represents. Even worse, the APA voted down, by a substantial margin, an amendment that would have forbidden psychologists to play a role in detentions outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention or other international agreements. The main force against the resolution and the amendment was a group within the APA called Society for Military Psychology. Their stance on this issue isn't particularly surprising. What is surprising is the fact they can persuade the whole of APA to their views, despite the fact these views are quite clearly a matter of self interest rather than ethics.
So the next time someone asks the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist you can say they have different professional ethics. You decide which one you admire more. For me, it's no contest.
- Log in to post comments
My interest was piqued enough to go look at their website and read the available newsletters.
http://www.apa.org/divisions/div19/militarypsychology1.html
Looks simple enough: it is an internal gathering of the military, an away-day for people who don't see each other because they are in different services etc. Which in turn tells us that it represents some mixture of the culture and the things you have to say as part of your career ambitions.
All of the board are military. The only academic is West Point. There are a lot of names listed in the newsletter (they are very open about this); next to no identifiable civilians associated with them. The civilians are the ones getting student awards (some quite acceptable-sounding studies of the effects of deployments on families, the impact of race on Gulf War syndrome, etc, and some quite sensible-sounding ones like the effects of new camouflage on visibility). And surely the best evidence: they report their meetings in 24-hour clock time- as in, start their meeting at "1400"
If they are authentic enough voices of the military to meet at 1400 (in America!) then they are probably authentic voices of the military in general...
My concern for the detention and torture of people that would do us harm Revere is boundless. Shit, get them boys a lawyer! Geez, I think we rapidly forget that we had to turn our TV's off as people were beheaded to a shocked world. Now thats real ethics for you. Was that a K-Bar knife? Did he use it correctly when he took that kids head off? Was he thinking about the mental health of his ..."patient?" Damn, I mean really. Did he get a cigarette before they offed him?
Welcome to the reality party Revere. There are shrinks out there that say that war is unethical. Okay I give it to them hands down. But they do happen now dont they? So when faced with the facts that our opponents are outnumbering us 6 to 1 right now on the world stage I really dont give one big crap what they do to stop them. I applaud the action of the shrinks that would do what is needed to defend the country. Quite a few shrinks feel the way I do. Shrinks talking about gathering information ethically is a Catch-22. Did Saddam hesitate? Did the Ruskies? Should we? Torture? Please.....
We keep getting into this ethical situation in the face of an enemy that is nearly invisible. They would do the most horrendous of things to kill us and we are debating whether they have "rights" and "ethics". Be sure to talk ethics to them when they show up on your doorstep someday.
I have seen you quote our Constitution, the Geneva Convention and basically everything but the Betty Crocker Cookbook about the inequalities of war, their rights and we still keep getting hit. We arent getting hit as a rule in Iraq by Iraqi's, they are Iranians. So whats ethical about crossing a border to kill? Skull that one out a bit and tell me what the end game and result is going to be?
We werent in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11, we werent in Iraq when they jacked the TWA flight to Beirut, we werent in Iraq when they killed a colonel in Italy, we werent in Iraq when they took the EL AL flight to Idi Amin's hideout. Seems that they have an agression problem. Now theres something the shrinks can do something about. If they dont then guys like me will. Politically correct in the face of reality is about the second most fastest way to get killed that I know. I dont negotiate with guys that argue with a gun, I kill them.
So ethically speaking, should we use our shrinks to develop methods that might tear a mans mind apart to get information and prevent an attack? Or should we just say we are above that because we are Americans and civilized and all of that usual drivel? Big decision.... I paused for all of one second to come up with the answer. And it is that unless you want to be dead or subjugated you just have to do what is necessary.
I just cant seem to grasp what you are going for here. Ethics? Those are for people who are civilized, act under the rule of law, and above all dont plot ways and carry them out to blow up masses of people without a declared war. I state the facts here Revere. For over 60 years the Muslims have been doing their best to kill Israel and only because it exists. Now they have made a military decision to attack us as well as our allies and the end result is that we might have to eliminate a whole population or tamp it down to the point that it is a non factor.
As for the above individuals, assertion that they are doing something wrong is an opinion, based on ones education, moralities, and the law. I applaud you for the notion. None of those apply when you are dealing with those that would not use the last two except to convolute to their way of thinking and to extort a position. Generally accepted practice is in relation to whats happening that day. I dont go out thinking today that I am going to go and kill a Sunni if I am a Shia. Nor do I plot the hijacking of a plane or bus, or the detonation of a Sarin weapon in a Japanese train terminal. But thats just me. I have other endeavors to accomplish today. But, if the situation develops as it has then our country, our people of all bents and professions would have to start making hard choices. We are there now. You have opted for the road that would not produce any security. We have security now, but fewer rights. I'll take the trade off.
Shrinks getting into the minds of a nutcase is one thing, getting into the mind of what I consider to be a soldier for Allah and not a terrorist is another. We need people who know both the criminal mind, the psychotic one, and one that is Hell bent on impostion of a will to determine what our next course of action should be. Its a best guess in a war. If the plan works then go with it. If not change course.
To me its not unethical for shrinks to participate in destruction of one mind to prevent the destruction of hundreds of thousands. But then again, thats just me. I wouldnt want to ruin the guys Chi as he takes another head off... Just wouldnt be ethical. I guess we just need to forget all of those people who took the ride down on the WTC's.
I wonder if they cared about ethics if it had been preventable in any way?
Randy: Since you don't care about ethics either you are their mirror image. The shock of recognition?
Nothing more shocking than being dead while trying to negotiate with a terrorist Revere. We are them, they are us. It only takes a push to get a marble going, how far it goes is determined by the force applied to it. Its a moot point whether the marble is rolling and who pushed it first. Someone soon is going to stop it, them or us.
Good for you, Randy. Let's fire up the race war just to show the world that PhD's can be badasses.
Oh, wait, weren't we supposed to be better than them? Guess not.
So why don't you get some glue to keep your loose marbles where they are.
For those interested in this matter, it is amply covered by this blogger. One needs to dig through though as he does treat other topics as well.
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/
There are of course all kinds of legal issues. Eg. APA is an accredited UN NGO. What will happen with that? My guess is: nothing. (The scandal is old, this is just the latest episode.) I believe that in some states in the US psychologists can lose their license if they violate APA guidelines...so....??
Anyway it is all utterly disgusting. Unspeakable.
I was at the APA convention, which had 12 hours of programming related to this topic. Some context, missed by your psychologist friend, as well as you and your other commenters: the resolution actually was an attempt at reversing the tacit support that APA had given to the participation of psychologists in situations where torture occurred, with the rationale that participation would permit mitigation. The time for outrage was some time ago when the original policy statement surfaced and many of us within APA have been organizing since then.
As a step, the resolution that was ratified was a positive, but, in my view, did not go far enough. I would like to have seen the more sweeping amendment passed. BTW, the executive committee of the military division of APA changes yearly and has included civilians with no military background--the current and past representatives to APA council have been civilians. One of them is a past president (and an old school friend with whom I've had repeated disagreements on policy).
APA ethics guidlines form the basis for licensing laws in all states, but tthe individual states diverge in different ways. Also, not all psycologists are eligible for licensure--typically it is only clinicians. In some states school, & industrial psychologists may be licensed. In the early days of licensure, licenses were generic, regardless of paractice, but that has changed. For non-clinicians, the effect of violating ethical guidelines codified by law would be limited, although they could still be booted out of APA (the bootees are listed with the annual dues statements).
If you're going to blunder into other peorple's professions, take a few minutes to do some actual homework.
Natural-its not about race. Far from it. Its about a group of people that would kill you on the spot for your thoughts. Revere would be toast as well. You can rant all you want about it but the facts are clear. We are under attack along with anyone that disagrees with them. We have all the weapons, they have all the opportunity. Want your wife and kids to be subjected and subjugated... Stick with your thoughts that its a nice big shiny blue marble and that we all are equal and have all sorts of rights that are given by some piece of paper that sits in the UN. Uh-huh, and who enforces that even now? Kosovo, Darfur, Mogadishu, Rwanda. These are the training grounds for what is about to happen on this planet and its going to go poof pretty soon. It doesnt matter who is in the White House either. They are coming after us and we are going to get the bigger picture in another way. But then, you will have to make the decision what you will do or not do to protect you, your family and your country. Mine is already made.
We will all need shrinks after the inevitable happens.
Ana-If the Swiss were threatened with attack would they respond? General Guisan was well aware that the Germans had plans to incorporate the Swiss after they knocked off the Russians. You might have heard of this one? "Die Scwheiz, das kleine Stachelswein nehmen wir auf Ruckweg ein"
What would Ana do to protect her way of life and her country?Would you load up some prisoner with drugs, use electroshock, hot pokers, sleep deprivation, food deprivation? What would Ana do if she became aware that one man had all the information to prevent an attack? As a rule torture produces limited results on people that are conditioned to it. The Germans were Hell bent on the capture of an Overlord before the invasion of Normandy. I wonder if the Germans would have treated said person with ethics and in accordance to the Geneva Conventions.... History says no. Its all about perception at the time and the place its happening. Revere and others get quite upset that someone would step outside of the bounds of what is acceptable today, here and now to prevent a situation from happening. The Conventions and general law do not apply to this situation that we are faced with. Revere should be thanking Bush rather than bashing them because this is a new type of war we are in. It is the war of the insurgency and that means also here in the US. If they do not wear uniforms do we treat them as spy, terrorist, or soldier. We opted for enemy combatants. Be very, very glad that the Conventions were not applied if they were considered to be terrorists, or spies. Those people have no rights at all and you can do just about anything you want with them.
I again state it for the record. I would do whatever is necessary to prevent the destruction of any NATO ally, its people or materiel and would expect the same vice-versa from them and of course this country. If a terrorist was sitting on a school bus full of kids with a bio weapon on board, I would incinerate it without so much as a thought if there were no other viable way to prevent its release. I would also take said terrorist with information about such an incident about to happen apart piece by piece until I got the information I needed to prevent it. There are those that would have you fight wars with one hand and foot tied behind your back and that is the politically correct faction. Best way to fight a war is not have one. But if it happens, you fight it to win and that means questionable acts and in some cases to the point of extreme. Shrinks can assist in this as can MD's. You dont want to kill them if possible but as I said, different wars require different tactics.
Better get used to that over there in the EU. You guys are in their sights too. France is on the border with the Swiss.
Randy: If we take your comments and translate them into Arabic, change a word here or there and they would make a lovely jihadist rant. They are just the kind of thing the other side uses to prove to their audience why they have to kill us -- your arguments why we have to kill them. The ideal solution would be to put all of you into a big arena and let you fight it out among yourselves, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Both of you get the rest of us involved as "collateral damage," which of course you both think is too bad but unavoidable and "worth it." Since I don't think you are a bad person I must conclude that if I knew more about them I probably wouldn't think they are so bad either. What a world!
I think I said that too Revere. Someone is going to have to come out the winner in this or both sides are going to have to cease fire. I doubt seriously the latter will occur. But Iran is trying to topple Pakistan even as we speak and unless we do something, some shit crazy son of bitches are going to have a nuke. It is exactly what was done in the days of Saladdin. By your own admission they are trying to kill us... At what point would you fight? There are a ton of people of interest in the US of A now. They arent here for the summer sports. Kill them all? Might just have to.
I wish it werent so. As you have stated I am not a bad person, but I can be and have been a badassed person. You keep poking your horns in the knee of the giant and sooner or later he reacts violently. We very likely are going to see an expanded war and soon here.
Good for you, Randy. Let's fire up the race war just to show the world that PhD's can be badasses.
Oh, wait, weren't we supposed to be better than them? Guess not.
So why don't you get some glue to keep your loose marbles where they are.
Revere, thanks for covering this. We psychologists who have been leading the struggle against collaboration with torture feel that we are finally getting the public's attention.
New York Times bestselling author-psychologist Mary Pipher returned an award to the APA to protest its stance on torture: Why Mary Pipher Returned Her APA Award
Steve: Thanks. Keep up the good fight. And thanks for the links on your blog!
Mr. Kruger has conflated the issue of war with the issue of torture.
The APA can and should affirm that the provision of assistance in acts of torture runs counter to the principles of their organization. Health care workers should universally be against torture, or they should not work in that field.
Remember the horrific story about the doctor who participated in the torture of two DEA agents in Mexico, maybe 15 years ago? This was justifiably greeted with outrage, because he used his doctoring skills to amp up the torture of the two men (by using powerful drugs to return them to consciousness, etc): absolute and total EVIL, facilitated by his medical skills and knowledge.
Can anyone explain to me why psychologists (or anyone else, for that matter) should be engaged in the torture of human beings? Expedience is no excuse, because it has been shown again and again that torture is ineffective at obtaining useful intelligence, but since when is expedience even a valid excuse for any evil enterprise anyway?
It is past time for members of APA to take a stand, and to abandon their organization if it will not follow the lead of the psychiatric and medical societies in disavowing torture in its entirety. Half measures are inadequate in the face of an abomination. And psychologists using the tricks of their trade in the pursuit of deliberate harm can only be described as an abomination.
Kathleen-If you knew for sure that a person had information that would stop the sinking of a cruise ship, dropping a WTC, or the UN what would YOU do to stop it? What if it was the hospital you worked in? All those patients who couldnt run? How about it? The situation presents itself so very rarely for anyone anyway because we hire it done. But really, would you beat the snot out of someone to prevent it?
To be honest with you I would break every bone in his/her body to get the information to prevent it, even it if killed them in the process. There it is, plain and simple-to the point. I wouldnt if the guy was a low grade informant with little chance of succes, but I wouldnt hesitate if he was someone like Abu Al-Zarqawi. Nope. Nor would I pause even if it were on US soil. But in all likelyhood we would never see that happen or the chance or need to do it.
Shrinks and torture. How many can there possibly be in a day or week? I would say less than five worldwide, much less. As for doing it myself? Oh, I probably would be tried for it, but there aint a jury in the land that would convict if it indeed stopped it. If it didnt stop it, well then the defense would be that at least we tried. With our judicial system I likely would get community service with Paris Hilton as the trusty.
There has to be a standard somewhere but when speaking of mass death or WMD, someone has to step up to the plate and just do whats necessary. I wouldnt like doing it as some apparently kind of get into it, but do it I would.
HCW's by nature are a different breed. Of course it shouldnt be condoned or done but when the chips are down then HCW's have to make a decision just as shrinks have to when they know their patient is about to commit a crime against someone e.g. murder. Priests too. Its a horrible dilemma but no one ever gets to home plate without running thru the bases first and its a front line defense. The idealistic world that we used to live in departed when they dropped 5 embassies and the WTC's like so much broken china. They bring it upon themselves.
Even Bush gave them "enemy combatant" status. No one else wanted to because terrorists have zero rights and in country can be summarily shot in the event of a state of emergency. No trial, nothing but an execution.
I also just went down your postings on your blog Kathleen.... You are left of left to the nth degree as best I can ascertain. Madisons comments are not law by the way. Just a comment carrying no weight in law or perceived honor. Perhaps we can indict B. Clinton for failing to get a resolution from Congress for Kosovo? How about lying to a Grand Jury... regardless of whether it was about what constitutes sex?
How about Tail Gunner Joe's Democrat counteropposite, Henry Waxman? I am all for the beginnings of a new law to limit the power of Congress to subpoena because its out of hand on both sides and the middle.
Hey, then there is Leahy. Yep, told a flat lie on the tube the other day by saying that he was at his vacation house when he was actually in a casino? Video cameras dont lie, but he might. Hang in there Patrick.
As for the presidents commutation for Scooter Libby I will say this and let it go. It was first within the boundaries of the law. Second and this applies to both aisle and a middle that is very narrow. I am damned tired of these endless subpoena's to appear before Congress as there is always some insinuation of wrong doing. It costs these people both Dem/Rep/Ind MILLIONS of dollars to appear and if their story doesnt EXACTLY mount up with what they told the FBI investigators likely months earlier some crackerjack asshole bully of a politically appointed assistant AG files perjury or obstruction charges against them. It ruins peoples lives forever and quite frankly its not what the subpoena process was intended for. Its a bully tactic.
Its going to get down to this and soon. A subpoena will no longer carry any weight and people will appear and then refuse to testify for fear of those charges which may or may not be true. They can take the 5th and simply over and over repeat it as they did in the Congressional Commie hunts of the 1950-60's. They are afforded that right and even if they dont appear the most that Congress can do is issue a contempt citation. Big deal. Our system is great in that the rights of the individual cannot be ursurped even by our mighty Congress when they are on a witch hunt.
You cant impeach Cheney or Bush and Pelosi knows it. They all signed on to crap information that was gleaned from crap sources. I didnt buy it any more than Colin Powell did because I could read between the lines. But it ousted Saddam and that Kath is a good thing. Shit planning for the post invasion for sure. But I can definitely say that Al Qaeda had Saddams phone number before we took him out.
Please....when they reformulated the dry erase markers to be "more environmentally friendly" and have "less fumes," their usable life also dropped by about 80%. What a DEAL for the manufacturer...they get the pat on the back for being good corporate citizens AND they get to force people to buy a whole lot more of their product. Bah...
Thanks for all.
t h a n k s.