Psychologists: Ethics Transcend Politics (No Pre-, Post-9/11 Ethics; Can't Be Party to Torture))

[Hissyspit]

Source: UPI

Published: Oct. 13, 2009 at 1:12 AM

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark., Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Psychologists cannot be party to torture and there should be no pre- or post-Sept. 11, 2001, ethics, two U.S. psychologists said.

Psychology professor Jeffrey Lohr and colleague David Tolin, both of the University of Arkansas, documented the history and criticisms of the ethics policy of the American Psychological Association. The researchers examined the evidence of any alleged role of psychologists in "creating, teaching and implementing torture practices."

They found psychologists did more than just develop and train others in "enhanced interrogation methods." Investigative reports and recently declassified documents show that psychologists have been directly involved in administering such interrogation, including waterboarding, Lohr and Tolin said.

Before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the American Psychological Association required psychologists to adhere to an ethics code and, should a law be at odds with the code, to "resolve the conflict in a responsible manner." The code was revised in 2002 to permit psychologists to "adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority" over professional ethics.

"As an ethical organization, we must recognize that there are no 'pre-Sept. 11, 2001, ethics' or 'post-Sept. 11, 2001, ethics,'" Lohr and Tolin said in a statement. "Rather, our discipline is guided by a core set of principles that should not vary according to shifts in the political tide."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/13/Psychologists-Ethics-transcend-politics/UPI-22551255410775

[zeemike]

1. It is a shame that they need to make statements like this.

It should be self evident but apparently it is not.
It really goes to the heart of the mater of ethics....as to whether it can be flexible and co-opted by fear and hate.

[Enthusiast]

11. Ain't that the damn truth!

GOP ethics have become relativistic and optional.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Ethics & honor are for suckers and Proles. Sneer. Smirk." - Republicon Homelanders

[LeftishBrit]

3. k& an ENORMOUS R!

[whoopingcrone]

4. APA troubled by ethics?

or the lack thereof?
Not in a long time, if you think the 33 years between when I became a ph.d.
and now is awhile.
Back then, it was okay to experiment on kids without their/their parents' consent
or even their knowledge.
It was okay to evaluate a kid's "mental capacity" while knowing that the tests used were invalid.
It was okay to decide a kid "had" a "condition" that the psychos themselves had invented.
It was okay to go slow when providing fee-per-session therapy.
Lohr and Tolin got it right.
There are no pre- or post- Sept 11 2001 ethics in the APA.
Their "core set of principles" has always been based on "whatever you need to do
to make a buck".
That's why I never became a member.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. That's a very broad condemnation-- of some 140,000 members.

Sheeesh.

[atreides1]

10. Not Really

If the members don't call for an adjustment of the ethical policies of the APA, then the condemnation is accurate.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Actually, many APA members did speak out against torture...

The past few conferences of the APA have been marked by vociferous protests from members demanding clarity in the ethical code re: torture, and expulsion of members who have participated in unethical conduct related to torture. When the APA leadership refused to take a strong stand against torture, several well known, high profile members (Mary Pipher is one) resigned in protest. The issue has created the biggest division in the APA in recent history.

[JohnnyLib2]

14. For sure.

And, the actual number of psychologists involved in that type of work is small, not very representative of the profession.

Tough issues....

[whoopingcrone]

16. I agree, it's a "broad" statement

and "harsh" and "generalized", too.

However, being a member of a group, any group, implies one endorses its goals and agrees with its fundamental premises.
Every one of the members was able to review the APA's ethical policies in effect at the time he/she applied to join the organization,
and, if willing to bother, to keep him/herself informed of any changes.

Seems to me that if it requires a debate to decide whether or not one should permit ones fellow members to participate in practices
officially labeled as torture, an awful lot of them flunked the course in Professional Ethics.

[Hissyspit]

5. Damn that extra parenthesis.

It mocks me.

[buffalowings]

6. primed to use torture?

Interesting article. When science disregards ethics, manipulation rules:

The Subconscious Brain - Who's Minding the Mind? - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/psychology/31subl.html?ei=5090&en=62f9b092a91bc6dc&ex=1343534400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Eric J in MN]

7. "requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority"

So if the governing authority of the CIA says torture is a requirement of a job, then it's OK for an APA member to torture, since they have a choice of following the law, regulations OR other governing authority.

[buffalowings]

9. No, it's not okay.

No, it's not okay. Do you like the words, "prime mover?" :) Kinda has a psychological ring to it, eh?

[marshall]

13. Is being safe worth giving up our humanity?

There are lots of lines we could cross that would result in us being safer. The attackers of 9/11 took advantage of the freedoms in this country and the open nature of our people--it would be a shame to change the best thing about ourselves in reaction to their hatred.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Giving up your ethics is giving up your power.

When we as a nation subjugate our ethics to the terrorists because of a brutal attack, we De Facto give the attackers power by allowing them to define us.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.:thumbsup: