Psychologists’ tortured logic

As seen here

In late July the American Psychological Association went in thesame direction, but only a fraction of the distance, as the AmericanPsychiatric Association and the American Medical Association byadopting a resolution prohibiting its members from engaging in oroffering training in torture and establishes an ethical obligation forassociation members to report acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, ordegrading treatment or punishment. (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Thissounds like a strong statement but it fell short of both the APA andAMA policies, which do not allow participation in militaryinterrogations, such as those at Guantanamo Bay.

ThePsychologists’ position was crafted by a ten member committee, sic ofwhom had ties to the military, four at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib or inAfghanistan:

APA president GeraldKoocher, who handpicked the task-force members along with theorganization’s former president Ronald Levant, said in an interviewthat the psychologists’ military and national-security backgrounds didnot raise conflict of interest or broader questions about the taskforce and its report. He defended choosing psychologists with suchbackgrounds, saying "they had special knowledge to contribute."

[snip]

Somepsychologists go so far as to wonder if the APA has allowed itsinterrogation policy to be set by the military. "The military seemed tobe very well represented on that committee," Reisner said. "This issue,which is never spoken about, is the relationship between the AmericanPsychological Association and the military. This has been in the backof my mind throughout this whole debate.

[snip]

"Ithink it is wrong to use one’s professional knowledge in the service ofbreakdown — breaking people down," author and psychiatrist Robert JayLifton said in a phone call from his home at Cape Cod, Mass. He calledthe psychological association’s willingness to participate ininterrogations "wrong." Lifton added, "Even though they do not take theHippocratic oath, they are in the healing profession."

Indefense of his association’s position, Koocher pointed out that manypsychologists are behavioral scientists, and as such aren’t caregivers.The APA president cited examples such as psychologists who evaluatepeople’s competence to stand trial or who train hostage negotiators.

Tounderscore the difference between caregiver and interrogationconsultant, the APA’s ethics principles bar the same person fromperforming both functions, stating that psychologists should "refrainfrom engaging in such multiple relationships."(Salon)

As in, "My son, the interrogation consultant?"

InMay the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees and itsassembly approved a statement affirming that it is not ethical forpsychiatrists and psychologists to participate in the interrogation ofprisoners in camps such as Guantanamo. The policy statement that "nopsychiatrist should participate directly" seems even broader when oneconsiders 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)

TheUS Army Medical Department had no immediate response as to how it wouldaffect military policy but said it was "actively discussing" thestatement. The APA President said it wasn’t an "ethical rule" (whynot?) so psychiatrists wouldn’t get in trouble with the organizationfor violating it.

The psychiatrists got involvedbecause the role of healers in interrogation has become a topic in themedical profession. In June, the American Medical Association followedsuit, adopting guidelines that made it unethical for physicians toparticipate in the interrogation such as those held at Guantanamo orother US facilities. This was in direct contradiction to "guidelines"drafted by the Department of Defense which found o ethical obstacle todoctors actively participating in interrogations. The AMA was the thirdmedical organization to make participation in interrogationsobjectionable activities, joining the APA and the World MedicalAssociation.

Human rights activists were obviously approving:

"TheAMA acted today to defend the basic principles of medical ethics and toprotect the men and women bravely serving our country as militaryhealth personnel," stated Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD(USA-Ret), an advisor for Physicians for Human Rights. "Since 2001, thecivilian leadership at the Pentagon has been engaged in a full frontalassault on the basic standards of medical and military ethics, from theHippocratic Oath to the Geneva Conventions. All the major medicalassociations are now standing together to demand that thisadministration respect the core values of both the health professionaland the soldier." (Physicians for Human Rights)

Likethe psychiatrists’ policy, AMA prohibits doctors from participatingdirectly, helping to plan or develop interrogation strategies orintervening in specific interrogations. There is some wiggle room forpreparation of training materials separated from any particulardetainee, and Physicians for Humans Rights joined others in asking theAMA to remove that remaining ambiguity as inconsistent with thedoctor’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 nota progressive organization and has taken some very conservative political positions. At the same time, the Department of Defense’smedical branch, under the command of Assistant Secretary of Defense forHealth Affairs, William Winkenwerder, has shown how completely divorcedit is from the ethics of the medical profession. They will never betried like other war criminals because they don’t work for a losingside.

Other than that, there isn’t that much difference.