Home arrow Newsletter arrow Summer 2008 arrow Social Issues Forum
Social Issues Forum PDF Print E-mail

Summer 2008

SOCIAL ISSUES FORUM REPORTS

Of Foreign Concern

Submitted by Jon Girvetz, Ph.D.
831-425-0272
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Co-chair, MBPA Contemporary Issues in Psychology Committee

The concern regarding APA’s stance on the use of psychologists in the interrogation of prisoners has gone beyond our borders. Concerns were expressed and questions asked of Alan E. Kazlin, President of APA, in a letter from Tor Levin Hofgaard, president of the Nordic Committee of Psychologist’s Associations and President of the Norwegian Psychological Association (Oslo, 25th June 2008). After acknowledging that potential “loopholes” were filled in APA’s latest revision of their 2007 resolution on the subject, the following is a summation of their questions and concerns:

  • They question whether the APA considers the stated aims of psychologists’ involvement in military interrogations are consistent with the UN Principles of Medical Ethics? The stated aims cited include “to evaluate where the potentially weak spots are, when to push or not to push the person under interrogation harder in pursuit of intelligence information” (Office of the Surgeon General, 2005) and to “teach interrogators how to exploit high value detainees” (Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, 2006).
  • “We are concerned that the mere presence of psychologists in settings and environments where detainees are deprived of their most fundamental human rights may be interpreted as a way of condoning these practices, giving support and legitimacy to serious violations of international law and human rights (Oslo, 2008)?” They request APA’s opinion on this.
  • They question the compatibility of APA’s 2007 Resolution and APA Ethics Code provision 1.02. The ethics code indicates that if there is a conflict between ethical principles and the law, “psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law or other governing legal authority (APA, 2002).” The 2007 Resolution states that there “are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders.”
  • “Furthermore, according to the Introduction and Applicability section of the APA Ethics Code (2002), psychologists should perform their work ‘in keeping with the basic principles of human rights.’ This entails that a psychologist acting in a professional capacity could not invoke the law to justify an abuse of human rights (Behnke, 2004).” “How does this apply to psychologists working in places and environments in which violations of human rights and international law systematically occur as a matter of institutional policy, such as at GuantanamoBay and CIA black sites (Oslo, 2008)?”
  • They go on to point out that the applicability section of the APA Ethics code makes reference to human rights, but Ethics Code provision 1.02 does not. They point out that this gives the impression that psychologists’ adherence to fundamental human rights is “merely aspirational and not enforceable.” They ask,“Does APA deem it ethical for psychologists to actively participate in situations where enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention/imprisonment without charge or trial occur (Oslo, 2008)?”
  • They question the wisdom of APA’s argument that the continued presence of psychologists in military interrogations is to ensure that they are safe, ethical and legal in their administration. They cite the issue of “dual loyalty” inherent in such settings thus restricting the psychologists’ freedom to act as “whistle blowers” in relation to human rights violations. “Is it not so that APA would promote the protection of detainees far better by working to secure/grant independent organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other independent human rights monitoring bodies, unlimited access to all detainees in order to prevent abuse and ill-treatment (Oslo, 2008)?”
  • They finally question, “…what initiatives have been taken from the APA to secure that independent and thorough investigations have taken place in situations where allegations of psychologist involvement in torture and other ill-treatment have been presented (Oslo, 2008)?”

Though the pressure that MBPA and other organizations have put on the APA to alter and modify their position has had some positive effect, perhaps a taste of how we are perceived by those from without will have even more impact. Thank you to Tor Levin Hofgaard and the vigilance that he and his organizations are showing with the difficulties that we are having within our own APA.

Jon Girvetz, Ph.D.

 

APA Convention Protest

Submitted by Jennifer Kaupp, Ph.D.
831-429-9314
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Co-chair, MBPA Contemporary Issues in Psychology Committee

Stephen Soldz, Ph.D., sent the following announcement about a rally planned for the APA Convention in Boston, Saturday, August 16, 12-2 pm. Speakers include Drs. Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Ghislaine Boulangier, Bryant Welch, and Dan Albers. This rally has been endorsed by APA Division 39, Section IX (Psychoanalysis and Social Responsibility). Based on MBPA’s long-held position denouncing psychologist involvement in military interrogations and rendition teams, and our participation last year, we have again offered our endorsement.

Psychologists for an Ethical APA Calls for Protest Outside APA Convention


"A government is not the expression of the will of the people, but rather the expression of what the people will tolerate."
Kurt Tucholsky


We as psychologists and American citizens have become aware that our government has adopted torture and the denial of human rights for detainees as official policy. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, rendition and CIA "black sites" have irrevocably entered our language and consciousness. Waterboarding, sexual and religious humiliation, and denial of habeas corpus have become symbolic of a climate of disdain for human rights and human decency that has infected our government and been absorbed into our social fabric.

During the last several years, we have also become aware that psychologists have played central roles in the Bush regime of torture and detainee abuse. As has been documented by numerous journalists and official government reports, psychologists helped develop, implement, standardize, and disseminate abusive interrogation techniques that have led to torture. Other psychologists responsible for treating detainees, along with other health professionals, failed to act against abuses being committed upon those they were ethically obliged to heal and protect. Given the central role of our profession in perpetrating and abetting these abuses, the rest of us who represent the field bear a special responsibility to do all we can to stop the abuses and voice our objection.

Our professional association, the American Psychological Association, has failed us. While we expectantly listened for a clear moral voice opposing complicity with our government's abuses, the APA engaged in a pattern of denial, deceit and distraction in support of its policy keeping psychologists engaged in interrogations at detention centers where human rights and international laws have been grossly and systematically violated. When we needed an ethics policy that underscored the importance of ethical behavior, the APA created a revised code which allowed the following of unethical laws and regulations, and which removed protections for research participants when permitted by law or government regulation. When we needed deep ethical discussion, the APA appointed an ethics task force dominated by military-intelligence psychologists, most of whom served in precisely those interrogation settings under debate. When we needed clear statements condemning ongoing U.S, government abuses, the APA passed resolution after resolution condemning "torture" and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" while failing ever to condemn, or even acknowledge, the ongoing abuses. When we needed action against those psychologists participating in abuses, we received denial after denial and delay after delay, making a continual mockery of ethics enforcement. And when we needed to indicate to the world that psychology was a profession with the highest ethical standards, the APA alone, of all the major health professions' organizations, not only allowed continued participation in interrogations, violating the centuries-old "do no harm" ethical standards for health professions, but kept silent on known harms.

Last February, over six years after the first reports of US torture and abuse in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and later, Iraq, surfaced, the APA finally unambiguously condemned participation in 19 specific interrogation techniques. While this is a laudable, if long-delayed, first step, it is not enough.

  • We must forever remove psychologists from detention centers where human rights and international law are violated; to do otherwise is to collude in those abuses.
  • We must change our ethics code to no longer allow members to follow unethical laws or orders and to restore protections for all research participants.
  • We must reevaluate the nature of the ties between the APA and the military-intelligence establishment to avoid participation in future unethical government activities.
  • We must, in collaboration with other health professions, set up a Truth process to create a public record of the roles of psychologists and other health professionals in torture and other detainee abuse, and to recommend ethical, policy, and structural changes to reduce the likelihood that psychologists and other health professionals will collaborate with future abuses.

We call upon all APA members, psychologists, other health professionals, and citizens concerned with fundamental threats to human rights to let the Association know the time is long past due for real change. Please join us on the 16th of August to speak with a common voice against torture and for a return to an ethical psychology and an ethical American Psychological Association.


"A profession is not the expression of the will of its members, but rather the expression of what these members will tolerate."
Psychologists for an Ethical APA

Let the APA leadership know that we will not tolerate collaboration with detainee abuse. Psychology must once again become a profession based upon fundamental ethical principles.


When: August 16, 1:00-3:00 PM

Where: tba


For further information contact:

Stephen Soldz

Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development

Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

1581 Beacon St.

Brookline, MA 02446

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

David Sloan-Rossiter

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

MBPA Board Endorses Steven Reisner, Ph.D., for APA President

Submitted by Jennifer Kaupp, Ph.D.
831-429-9314
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Co-chair, MBPA Contemporary Issues in Psychology Committee

The Monterey Bay Psychological Association is pleased to announce the Board’s endorsement of Steven Reisner, Ph.D., for APA President. He is a champion of human rights and ethics, and a vociferous critic of psychology’s involvement in military interrogations, CIA Black Site activities, and renditions. Dr. Reisner has spoken out against the APA leadership’s apparent complicity in these practices with passion, eloquence, and knowledge. We need an APA president who will unequivocally adhere to APA’s time-honored ethical principles and restore respect to the profession. Do No Harm means Do No Harm. Further information on Dr. Reisner, his work as an activist, his position statement, and more can be found at http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/.

 

Time-Sensitive APA Referendum on Interrogations Policy

Submitted by Jennifer Kaupp, Ph.D.
831-429-9314
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Co-chair, MBPA Contemporary Issues in Psychology Committee

As you know, MBPA supports the position of Division 39, Psychologists for an Ethical APA, and others who are concerned about APA’s imprecise wording on the 2007 Resolution regarding psychology’s role in military interrogations. You can read about an upcoming referendum in the synopsis below, sent by Division 39 president, Dr. Nancy McWilliams. There is a link for more information on this issue and an opportunity for you to sign the petition.

Dear Division 39 members,

As you know, many members of our division have been working with other concerned psychologists to get APA to adopt a policy similar to the stance of other professional organizations (e.g., the AMA, the American Psychiatric Assn., APsaA) that would bar psychologists from working in sites that lack basic human rights protections (e.g., Guantanamo, the CIA "black sites"). The latest effort to influence our parent organization comes in the form of an APA ballot referendum that was mailed on Friday. You should receive it in the next few days.

Because the referendum has taken shape in the time since our April meeting, the Board has not had the opportunity to discuss whether or not to endorse it officially. But the referendum does call for the removal of psychologists from sites where detainees lack human rights protections such as those noted in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Notwithstanding some disagreement on the means to achieve this end, the Division 39 Board has consistently and unanimously supported that overall goal.

Please vote in this critical referendum. Over 1000 signatures of APA members were obtained in order to put this vexed question to a vote of the entire APA membership. Your vote will matter. Those who want to learn more about this issue before voting can find pro and con statements about the referendum on the APA web site, center column: www.apa.com . Additional material is available at www.ethicalapa.com , a web site maintained by the people who launched this long fight, including many of our most prominent members. If you misplace your ballot, please contact Dr. Garnet Coad at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it for a replacement ballot.

Thanks for your attention to this,

Nancy McWilliams, President, Division 39