Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Psychologists Should Play No Role in Interrogations
Faculty members of the Psychology Department at the University of Rhode Island, by majority vote, have signed a resolution stating that "direct or indirect participation by psychologists in interrogations of prisoners incarcerated in foreign detention centers that do not afford prisoners internationally recognized due process of law is unethical."
URI's resolution is part of a growing grassroots effort to urge the American Psychological Association to move beyond its current position, which allows psychologists working in foreign prisons to assist teams in certain kinds of interrogations.
The association's failure to rule out all participation has been the subject of protest among some of its members, some of whom are withholding dues while others are resigning. Psychologists at six colleges and universities, URI among them, have passed resolutions in hopes that the APA will reconsider its stance.
APA's policy regarding the ethics of psychologists working as behavioral science consultants to the military or CIA as it interrogates "enemy combatants" in foreign prisons has evolved from a taskforce report in 2005 that was never adopted or approved by the Council of Representatives to resolutions in 2006 and 2007 that were debated and approved.
The 2007 resolution reaffirms APA's condemnation of torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment under any conditions. But the APA Council did not approve an amendment asking psychologists to refrain from participating in any way in the interrogation of foreign detainees, but to limit their role "as health personnel to the provision of psychological treatment." This amendment was not approved despite the fact that the 2007 resolution expresses concern over the conditions of detainment in settings where detainees are deprived of international and human rights. In public statements, APA leaders maintain the wisdom of continuing to be "engaged" in the interrogation process.
I disagree. In detainee camps, psychologists work in secrecy; have not obtained informed consent; are not subject to legal, professional, and community oversight; and the rights of prisoners are not protected by constitutional and other guarantees.
Because of these circumstances, we should remove the focus on individual psychologists' ethics, which has been at the forefront of our discussions. By centering attention on the behavior of individual psychologists, we have neglected to ask the more important social psychological questions having to do with situation and context. When psychologists work in hospitals, clinics, courts, prisons, etc. in this country, there are rules and a relatively open process; there is potential oversight by lawyers, family, and community.
Can our ethics say it is okay to work in situations where this is not the case, in secrecy, in places where violations of human rights systematically occur as a matter of institutional policy? Where prisoners are detained for indefinite periods and not charged with any crimes? Where they are not protected by international human rights protocols or provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
Would we have condoned psychologists working (in any role) in Nazi concentration camps? Should psychologists work in any setting where processes are not subject to open review by courts, community, and oversight groups?
I believe the correct and ethical response must be no.
Bernice Lott is professor emerita of psychology and women's studies at the University of Rhode Island.
© 2007 by The Providence Journal Co.
15 Comments so far
Show AllI am amazed that their response isn't "no". Clearly patriotism as an ideology far outweighs any duty to do no harm.
I practiced psychology professionally for 25 years. It seems completely obvious that our ethics would forbid participation in any kind of torture, harsh interrogation, are anything that is not therapeutic. Those people who have complied with these types of orders should be named publicly and stripped of all professional affiliations, at the very least, and prosecuted as collaborators in war crimes.
The state regulatory boards could still, if they had the courage and moral decency, take action against practitioners participating in torture. Military and federal government psychologists are required to hold a state license somewhere. Furthermore, patients could boycott APA member psychologists, choosing instead non-member psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers or other counselors. This would force the APA to endorse a civilized set of guidelines. In a bizarre twist, the APA accepted a watered-down statement after a military psychologist told them that if he and his colleagues did not participate in interrogations, "people are going to get killed." This verifies that lethal means of torture are used by the same military that is claiming that it does not torture.
Psychology and other sciences are like everything else - can be used for good or for evil. Learn to draw the line, people.
So with psychologists participating, people just become mentally deranged. They certainly aren't there to protect the mental health of the prisoners. I agree, the American Psychological Association should be boycotted.
And while we are about it, will someone define "participate in interrogations"?
If you are a psychologist and want to network with others who are working to make psychologists' collaboration with torturers unethical according to the rules of the APA, please make contact at http://www.politicalpsychologyresearch.com
The APA leadership is morally bankrupt.
AlexLawyer: excellent idea regarding the licensing approach, though I would see it as rather problematic to safeguard the process of finding out who did what where and under what circumstances.
I agree with all the comments so far. I would like to highlight one passage from the article as food for thought: "By centering attention on the behavior of individual psychologists, we have neglected to ask the more important social psychological questions having to do with situation and context."
Professor Lott has hit the mark hard on this one: the next time an individual is offered up as a sacrificial lamb, whether it be in a political, military, or any other arena, we would do well to temper our vilification of the individual and avoid being distracted from the larger issue. Well said, Professor, well said.
I'd also like to add...shouldn't we get the psychiatrists out of there, too? You know...the ones with the needles and drugs...
I agree with the author, but the fact is that the APA has been in bed with the military since its founding. Military funding has always been a huge chunk of APA money from WW I onward. Psychologists have been involved in training soldiers, sailors, and airmen, designing weapons and gunsights, administering IQ tests, etc. for many decades. They are part of what keeps the empire running. The APA's argument that psychologists at interrogations serve a protective function deliberately ignores two facts: that psychologists are participants at such interrogations and that psychologists designed the techniques being used, including torture. They are also behind the mass marketing and political propaganda that saturate the minds of the public all over the world. Little wonder they don't want to jeopardize a source of their funding.
I think we tried very hard following the Abu Ghraib abuses to chase the culpability up the chain of command to institutional and contextual evils and high level responsibility. Although the trials of individuals were paraded before the public as adequate redress, a lot of the stink did stick to Rumsfeld et al. So the public is not really fooled by these "bad apple" explanations. Likewise the APA, concerned as all medical associations must be with the appearance of ethical propriety, is vulnerable when its members are caught helping out in government torture chambers. The law may never touch the APA or its rulebook, but we should not underestimate the power of stink.
Think Dr Mengela institutionalized
The allopathic medical community, in the form of the AMA has already banned MDs from participating in these interrogations. The interrogations that involve coercion, either moral or physical, are illegal according to Article 17 of the Third Geneva Conventions, dealing with prisoners of war, and Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, dealing with civilian prisoners. For the record, all prisoners of war have a right to be silent. They may not be coerced in any way, or punished for being silent, or rewarded for talking. They only have to say name, rank, serial number and age. Period. The comparison the author makes regarding Nazi prison camps, sadly, strikes the right note. As a psychologist myself, I'm astonished and ashamed that some members of my profession participate in illegal interrogations.
The Hippocratic oath that governs all those in the medical professions - primum non nocere (in the first place, do no harm) - must apply in all situations, not just when it is convenient. Principles that are twisted or discarded when times are hard reflect the weakness of those who profess to hold them.
A practicing psychologist for over 30 years, I joined APA in 1975. I'm currently withholding dues to maintain some influence (You have voting rights for two years.), but I foresee eventual resignation. The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association and the American Nurses Association have forbidden their members to participate in interrogations at illegal sites like Guantanamo. The American Bar Association refuses to provide pro-bono attorneys until the detainees have appropriate legal rights. Only APA is recalcitrant! DrC (five entries above), has made many of the most important points. I want to add that, by their very presence, psychologists add the appearance of legitimacy to these illegal operations. IF YOU ARE A PSYCHOLOGIST WHO IS INTERESTED IN THIS CONTROVERSY, GO TO BOTH www.withholdapadues.com and www.ethicalapa.com. The list of dues withholders is growing exponentially!!!
One candle’s luminosity
is an onslaught onto the Darkness