Questioning the Psychologists’ Involvement Essays

Questioning the Psychologists’ Involvement Essays Questioning the Psychologists’ Involvement Paper Questioning the Psychologists’ Involvement Paper Defining and understanding the concept of torture according to the first article of the UN declaration against torture entails a careful scrutiny of its three pillars: the relative intensity of pain or suffering inflicted; the purposive element; and the status of perpetrator. An act would then be torture when the pain is severely inflicted in an aggravated form of cruel degrading treatment and punishment in order for a public official to obtain necessary information (American Society of International Law). All of these three key pillars were reported to be present in a detailing facility in Guantemana, where several psychologists are employed. These practitioners were accused of abusing psychology to get information withheld by detainees. In an article by Neil Lewis, several tactics used in the facility include techniques that violate human rights (cited in Summers, 2007). Stephen Soldz in his article â€Å"a profession struggle to save its soul†, described these techniques as behavior modification (2006). A New Yorker told â€Å"democracy now! † that a psychiatrist gave an overview of what happens inside the detaining facility. A specific prisoner would receive only seven squares of toilet paper in a day. They also sometimes use one’s fear in order to breakdown a prisoner for instance; they would confine someone who feared total darkness in a dark place. Another behavioral scientist even promoted the use of learned helplessness in treating detainees (Soldz, 2006). American Psychologists Association’s Move The outbreak of these disturbing reports earned the American Psychologists Association lot of criticism its integrity have been continuously questioned as they get themselves involved in military and security related setting. To address this issue and to help guide psychologist in facing ethical challenges in these situations a taskforce on psychological ethics and national security was established by the then president Dr. Ron Levant. These taskforce consisted of individual equipped with extensive experience in working under a security related setting and individuals that have a different point of view. This taskforce was assigned to examine this issue and to release a guideline based on the association’s code of ethics (Behnk, 2006). In June 2005, the taskforce released a report stating that psychologists may take part in interrogations and in other security-related activities as long as they act in accordance to the code of ethics. It further reiterated that the taskforce is not assigned to conduct any investigations; hence, the report focused only on the 12 statements outlining the psychologist’s obligations in a national security setting (Behnk, 2006). The release if these statements did not put an end to the media’s and other professionals’ criticisms. This further raised questions and invoked movements to change the association’s policies. Questioning APA’s Actions and Stand The American Psychologists Association supports the involvement of psychologists in military. In the advent of these disturbing reports, the PENS task force was created simply to come up with a guideline regarding psychologist’s activity within a military or security related setting. Hence, the task force released only a report containing a vague and ambiguous guideline. Despite its claims that each of the PENS, task force statements was based on the association’s code of ethics, a conflict still arises between the code and the guideline (Summers, 2007). According to the ethics code, whenever a conflict is between the principles of the code of ethics and the order comes up, the order may be followed (cited in Summers, 2007). However, the PENS task force report suggests the violation of these orders when basic human rights are not followed. This conflict may even used to justify torturous interrogations (Summers, 2007). Moreover, the report did not contain any specific acts or treatment that should not be utilized during interrogations. It also did not state any sanction or action to prevent psychologists from getting involved in torture. This only strengthens the notion that the APA wishes to continue its involvement in Guantanamo. The involvement of the psychologist in a detaining facility like the one in Guantanamo is already a violation of the professional code of ethics. However, the previous president, Dr. Levant, reported the opposite after visiting Guantanamo in 2005(Summers, 2007). He claimed making observations by only talking with psychologists, who assured him that every action is bound by the ethical guidelines (Soldz, 2006). Without the interaction with the detainees, the APA president’s observation is invalid. Contrary to Levant’s observation is a report issued by the United Nations Commission on human rights that documented violations of the Geneva Convention and a breach of professional ethics (Summers, 2007) . Moreover, according to a New England Journal of Medicine article written by Gregg Bloche and Jonathan Marks, interrogation at Guantanamo often utilizes increased amounts of stress that constitutes torture. Examples of these counter-resistance measures are â€Å"sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, painful body position, feigned suffocation, and beatings† (cited in Soldz, 2006). The mere occurrence of these acts in Guantanamo implies that psychologists neglect their ethical responsibility of reporting such abusive measures to appropriate authorities. One cannot argue on the lack of awareness on these occurrences as some of the proponents of these measures are psychologists (Soldz, 2006). In an editorial written by Gerald Koocher, APA’s new president, in The Monitor, he defended psychologists employed under detaining facilities. He further attacked the allegations as simply based on speculations and rumors. He also stated that those who criticize psychologists’ involvement in the military cannot provide data to support their allegations. The lack of names and other data supports his consistent position that these reports are merely rumors (cited in Summers, 2007). The lack of names and data does not justify his claim that these allegations are merely speculations. It is known for a fact that the identities of these psychologists are concealed for security purposes (Soldz, 2006). Dismissing these reports as merely rumors clearly shows the association’s lack of interest in the validation of theses allegations. They simply do not want to find out the truth about the abuses in the applications of psychology in a security-related setting. It only strengthens the notion that the APA supports this involvement and that the relationship with the Department of Defense is their primary concern (Summers, 2007). APA’s Position Clarified Pyschologists’ involvement in these facilities is also being questioned: whether or not there is a breach of their professional code of ethics. Hoping to drive away the attention from the association, the APA created the PENS task force. The PENS task force issued its final report on a vague and ambiguous guideline, which in part is in conflict with their code of ethics. Moreover, the report only showed the association’s support on the psychologists’ involvement in such facilities. The report did not even outline prohibited treatments. Protection was also given to the military psychologist by both the previous and current president of the association. By taking this course of actions, the APA clearly shows it no intentions of validation the allegations of the human rights violations. Moreover, the existence of these conflicts between the guideline and the code of ethics provide a loophole for the justification of each inhumane act. Hence, people are left without a guarantee that these behavioral scientists would not breach their code of ethics and would not be involved in torturous acts in such facilities. References The American Society of International Law. (nd). The Definition(s) of torture in International Law. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from asil. org/is060630/Rodley_Def_Torture_paper_06_06_30. pdf. Counter Punch. (2006, August 1). A Profession Struggles to Save Its Soul Psychologists, Guantanamo and Torture. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from counterpunch. org/soldz0812006. html. Benke, S. (2006). Psychological ethics and national security: The position of the American Psychological Association, European Psychologist, 11, 153-156. Summers, F. (2007). Psychoanalysis, The American Psychological Association, and the Involvement of Psychologists at Guantanamo Bay. Psychoanalysis, Culture Society, 12, 82-93.