|
Title: Psychological Ethics and National Security: The Position of the American Psychological Association., By: Behnke, Stephen, European Psychologist, 2006, Vol. 11, Issue 2 Psychological Ethics and National Security : The Position of the American Psychological Association By: Stephen Behnke American Psychological Association Electronic Mail may be sent to: sbehnke@apa.org. For over 20 years, the American Psychological Association's position has been clear and unwavering: It is unethical for a psychologist to participate in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, under any circumstances, at any time, for any reason. There are no exceptions. A state or threat of war, a national emergency, or a law, regulation, or order can never justify a psychologist's participation in any of these acts. They are always forbidden. This position is found in numerous American Psychological Association (APA) resolutions and statements, including a 1985 Joint Resolution Against Torture with the American Psychiatric Association, a 1986 APA Resolution Against Torture, and a 2005 Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. The APA Ethics Committee, Board of Directors, and Council of Representatives have all resoundingly affirmed this position against torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. In addition to these ethical prohibitions, psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be alert to and report any acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to the authorities. Consistent with its position on this issue, the APA strongly supported passage of the McCain Amendment. The McCain Amendment states that “No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” and has been adopted as United States law. In 2004, media reports raised concerns regarding the role of psychologists and health professionals in national security-related settings. Following these stories closely, APA President Ron Levant, EdD (Doctor of Education) concluded it was critical for the APA to issue specific guidelines regarding psychologists' involvement in national security-related activities. Dr. Levant believes that the APA has a responsibility to address the ethical challenges facing psychologists in all areas of their professional work, a responsibility found in the APA's Bylaws: The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare .. . by the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics .. . by the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association .. . 1
To fulfill this responsibility, Dr. Levant called for the establishment of a task force on psychological ethics and national security (the “PENS” Task Force) to examine this issue and to set forth clear lines separating what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not acceptable for psychologists.
Dr. Levant identified two priorities for membership on the PENS Task Force. First, it was important for the Task Force to have individuals with extensive experience in national security-related work, so the Task Force would have the information it needed to consider the issues in depth and issue a report with clear ethical guidance. Second, the Task Force would include individuals with very different backgrounds and perspectives, so that all points of view would be discussed and challenged in the process of coming to particular positions.
The Task Force endorsed the important contributions that psychologists, as experts in human behavior, are poised to make in national defense-related settings when they act within strict ethical guidelines. According to the Task Force report “Psychologists have a valuable and ethical role to assist in protecting our nation, other nations, and innocent civilians from harm, which will at times entail gathering information that can be used in our nation's and other nations' defense.” Central to its ethical analysis, the Task Force stated that psychologists are bound by the APA Ethics Code in all their professional activities, regardless of whether they identify themselves as “behavioral scientists,” “behavioral consultants,” or some other term when they make these important contributions. This point is critical – psychologists are bound by the Ethics Code regardless of how they identify themselves. Thus, while psychologists have a valuable and ethical role to play in contributing to national defense, they always work under the Ethics Code and are bound by its strictures. Psychologists may never “opt out” of or avoid their ethical obligations.
The Task Force set out 12 statements regarding the ethical role of psychologists in national security-related activities. The report's 12 statements are derived directly from the APA Ethics Code. These 12 statements are:
1.
Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
2.
Psychologists are alert to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and have an ethical responsibility to report these acts to the appropriate authorities.
3.
Psychologists who serve in the role of supporting an interrogation do not use health care-related information from an individual's medical record to the detriment of the individual's safety and well-being.
4.
Psychologists do not engage in behaviors that violate the laws of the United States, although psychologists may refuse for ethical reasons to follow laws or orders that are unjust or that violate basic principles of human rights.
5.
Psychologists are aware of and clarify their role in situations where the nature of their professional identity and professional function may be ambiguous.
6.
Psychologists are sensitive to the problems inherent in mixing potentially inconsistent roles such as health care provider and consultant to an interrogation, and refrain from engaging in such multiple relationships.
7.
Psychologists may serve in various national security-related roles, such as a consultant to an interrogation, in a manner that is consistent with the Ethics Code, and when doing so psychologists are mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration.
8.
Psychologists who consult on interrogation techniques are mindful that the individual being interrogated may not have engaged in untoward behavior and may not have information of interest to the interrogator.
9.
Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality.
10.
Psychologists are aware of and do not act beyond their competencies, except in unusual circumstances, such as set forth in the Ethics Code.
11.
Psychologists clarify for themselves the identity of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their clients.
12.
Psychologists consult when they are facing difficult ethical dilemmas.
Thus far, APA is the only mental health organization in the United States that has stepped forward to issue clear ethical guidance on its members' involvement in national security-related activities. Other mental health and medical associations are examining this issue, but none has yet adopted an official position.
Following the release of the PENS Task Force report in June 2005, a number of individuals commented on the report. Mildred Solomon, EdD, an ethicist from Harvard Medical School, described APA's Task Force report as “an impressive first step” and called upon other health associations to follow “the principled actions of the APA.” Other characterizations, some in prominent publications, have unfortunately grossly mischaracterized the Task Force report.
An essay in the Lancet was highly critical of APA's position, yet the author had mischaracterized the report to such an extent that the Lancet subsequently agreed to post a response from APA on its website. The Lancet essay stated “In effect, it becomes acceptable for a health professional to dispense with any ethical responsibilities when their training and expertise is used outside a strictly therapeutic context.” In reality, the report explicitly and emphatically takes precisely the opposite position. The report states “As a context for its statements, the Task Force affirmed that when psychologists serve in any position by virtue of their training, experience, and expertise as psychologists, the APA Ethics Code applies. The Task Force thus rejected the contention that when acting outside traditional health-service-provider relationships, psychologists are not acting in a professional capacity as psychologists and are, therefore, not bound by the APA Ethics Code.” The report's language is crystal clear: The Ethics Code applies to all of a psychologist's professional activities.
The PENS Task Force fully acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved and the necessity of addressing competing interests. Ethical Principle B in the APA Ethics Code, Fidelity and Responsibility, states that psychologists “are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society.” Psychologists have a valuable and ethical role to assist in protecting our nation, other nations, and civilians from harm. This role will sometimes entail gathering information that can be used in our nation's and other nations' defense, which is appropriate when psychologists act in accordance with the PENS Task Force statements. Psychologists working in the area of national security-related investigations are in a unique position to assist in ensuring that processes are safe, legal, ethical, and effective for all participants. Thus, psychologists both protect innocent life and always abide by the clear strictures against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. In other words, whenever a psychologist fulfills a responsibility to society, the psychologist does so abiding by Principle A in the APA Ethics Code, “Do no harm.”
The Task Force report addressed a number of other aspects of psychologists' involvement in national security-related activities. The Task Force emphasized the role of culture and ethnicity by underscoring that an awareness of and sensitivity to the role of culture and ethnicity minimizes the likelihood of harm and bias while maximizing the likelihood that the information gathering process will be safe and effective. The Task Force emphasis on an understanding of culture and ethnicity and the central role they play in this work is highly consistent with the current APA Ethics Code. The Task Force also addressed a number of other critical issues that are relevant to psychologists, such as:
*
how particular settings may instill a profound sense of powerlessness and may compromise an individual's capacity to assert interests and rights;
*
that psychologists retain ethical obligations to all those involved in an interrogation or information-gathering process;
*
how a setting's ambiguity, combined with high stress, may facilitate behaviors that cross the boundaries of ethical propriety;
*
that a willingness to take responsibility for one's own ethical behavior will help ensure that the national security-related activities of psychologists are safe, legal, ethical, and effective;
*
that it is especially important to provide ethical guidance and support to psychologists at the beginning of their careers, when they may experience pressures to engage in unethical or inappropriate behaviors in national security-related settings that they are likely to find difficult to resist;
*
that psychologists should engage in further research, one focus of which should be to examine the psychological effects of conducting interrogations on the interrogators themselves, in order to explore ways of helping to ensure that the process of gathering information remains within strict ethical boundaries.
In a list of recommendations at the end of its report, the Task Force urged APA to continue to think through these very challenging issues and consider the report an “initial step in addressing the very complicated and challenging ethical dilemmas that confront psychologists working in national security-related activities.” The Task Force explained: “Viewed as an initial step in a continuing process, this report will ideally assist APA to engage in thoughtful reflection of complex ethical considerations in an area of psychological practice that is likely to expand significantly in coming years.” The APA believes that its work exploring and understanding the ethical aspects of these complex issues will continue, and that by embracing our responsibility to provide ethical guidance in this area of practice, the APA will serve both the public and psychologists well.
The Task Force report can be found at: http://www.apa. org/releases/PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
