Psychologists under fire for interrogation policy
The American Psychological Association is under
fire from some of its members and other professionals for declaring that it is
permissible for psychologists to assist in military interrogations.
The American Psychological Association is under fire from some of its members and other professionals for declaring that it is permissible for psychologists to assist in military interrogations.
An online petition against the group’s policy has garnered more than 1,300 signatures from members and other psychologists. Protest forums are being planned for the APA’s convention next month in New Orleans, Louisiana. And some members have threatened to withhold dues or quit.
The unrest stems from an APA policy, issued last year, that says that while psychologists should not get involved in torture or other degrading treatment, it is ethical for them to act as consultants to interrogation and information-gathering for national security purposes.
That stand troubles some members of the organization in light of the reported abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
Salon.com reported Wednesday that six of the 10 people on the APA task force that drafted the psychologists’ policy have close military ties, including four who have worked at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan.
Gerald Koocher, APA’s president, said that none of the task force members were involved in torture and that their military ties were not a conflict of interest.
No doubt, we all have feelings and opinions about whether or not medical professionals should establish priorities dividing their responsibilities to human beings — and nations. And why?
Precedents established at the Nuremberg Trials provide guidance to individuals on ethics vs. "patriotism" -- for people who think they need something official to back up their conscience. The sad bit is that so many Americans haven't advanced beyond the "Good Germans" we all got to meet after their defeat in WW2.
Posted: Fri - July 28, 2006 at 06:36 AM