| Frequently Asked Questions About APA Ethics Policy |
withhold APA dues in the wake of the recent passage of the Referendum?
WithholdAPADues members might reach different conclusions, all of which could be valid, depending on their perspectives and reasons for withholding dues in the first place. As such, they released the following statement, outlining the "pros" and "cons" of various scenarios with regard to several different factors:
We feel the decision “to pay or not to pay” APA dues depends very much on your individual situation and priorities. So instead of putting our 7 heads together to make a recommendation, we have outlined the pros and cons of each choice. However, if and when you decide to pay your dues, we strongly recommend that you write to APA President Kazdin and APA CEO Anderson explaining why. PAY NOW Pro: You reinforce the impact of the vote and remind them that you have linked your membership closely to the policy. Con: You lose a bit of leverage over how and when the APA implements the policy. WAIT FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE APA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Pro: You can link your decision to whether Steven wins or not. If he doesn’t win, you can decide whether this makes it likely the new policy will be amended or reversed and choose at that point to pay or not. If he does win, paying your dues would be doubly reinforcing of the changes (and a relief to Steven, who will need all the support he can get to make reforms). Most people on the list (probably at least 300 of the 350) joined after the 2007 APA debacle, so they are only one year into their dues withholding and can still safely coast for another year if they want to wait to see whether the APA is enforcing the referendum and reforming the PENS process. Con: You have to be alert and make sure you get the ballot in time to vote (or have time to request one if you haven't received it and the deadline for voting is near.) As long as people have paid their 2006 dues, they are still able to vote in November and if they don't receive a ballot, they can ask for it. In other words, anyone who received a ballot for the referendum will be able to vote in the presidential election, but keep an eye out for your ballot. WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE CONVINCED APA IS HONORING THE CHANGES Pro: You retain some leverage and can write letters that link your paying dues with an end to delays or waffling or destructive APA amendments. You retain a "from Missouri" demand for proof of change before you pay or rejoin. Con: You won’t have rewarded the forces of change, i.e. the members’ petition vote and election of Steven. It will take some time for APA to show that it is truly honoring the new policy (or is undoing it)....long enough to approach the time for the 2010 dues payment. If you have paid for 2009, you can always withhold your 2010 dues with a new protest statement (and still have a say in two more years of presidential elections.) In January 2009, those of us who started withholding for the 2007 year will forfeit our membership, so the decision to pay 2009 dues is crucial. If we forfeit our membership, we DO have to apply to rejoin the APA. YOU NEVER PAY YOUR DUES AGAIN Pro: If you feel that the corruption of the APA goes beyond its detention center policy to the nature of the organization, resignation may be the only option that does not compromise your values and ethical stance. You would still be on the withholdAPAdues listserve if you want (some on the list have quit the APA), and your postings will always be welcome. Con: You cannot participate in future votes from withholdAPAdues.com that are made public as protests or expressions of the group’s position. You will not be showing support for the referendum vote and if he wins, for Steven. You will be diminishing the pool of psychologists who are a force for reform of the APA...and there is still much to be done.
that "I believe we can be a force without being dues-paying members of APA." A member of the steering committee replied that she "can't think of a more needed correction," and noted the important contributions made to this struggle by several psychologists who have resigned from the APA. She then added: "We were couching this in terms too narrow i.e. votes within APA which are by no means the only way to effect change. Absolutely no slight or myopia intended." Q: The APA came out strongly against torture in the 2006 Resolution. Now it’s 2007 Resolution against torture is even stronger. What is the problem?
2007 Resolution recently approved by the APA Council of Representatives allow “torture-lite” (which, in reality, is anything but) practices prohibited under international law. Note how objection to the following practices is qualified in the 2007 Resolution: “isolation, sensory deprivation and over- stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.” In other words sensory deprivation (e.g., hooding, darkening the room for long periods), over-stimulation (e.g., sustained loud noises), and sleep deprivation (e.g., repeatedly waking up the detainee) are allowed, and the debate shifts to what “significant” pain or suffering means. This is one of the ways in which APA backs the military psychologists who oppose many flagrant abuses, but not all. Why should the APA support any abuses?
(and therefore in intelligence- gathering), the APA endorses psychologist work in a non-health related capacity within a setting in which prisoners are subjected to indeterminate incarceration, cruel and degrading conditions, lack of due process, and all manner of coercion. See also Linda M. Woolf’s Specific Concerns about the 2007 Resolution which can be accessed from this website, particularly her discussion of how the Resolution tacitly allows psychologists to work in intelligence gathering even when torture is occurring elsewhere in the prison.
command and must follow the orders of the Commanding Officer. They do not have the independence and clout of inspectors such as those from the United Nations. Also, like other military officers, psychologists are not immune to the intense situational pressures that make abuse likely in these settings. Reports from non-governmental inspectors continue to show that medical personnel are not adequately protecting detainees from abuse. Most disturbing are reports that psychologists have been instrumental in devising abusive interrogation methods, and/or have been associated with abusive treatments and therefore cannot be trusted by detainees as a source of protection. Q: The 2007 Resolution goes a long way to rectifying earlier problems with the APA position. Why can’t you accept that?
definitions of abuse and torture in favor of US law and its own interpretations of US law. The APA code of ethics should be independent of government interpretations of law. However, article 1.02 allows psychologists to adhere to the requirements of law when there appears to be a conflict between U.S. law and the psychologist’s ethical responsibilities. The new 2007 Resolution appears in places to put individual ethics first but not unequivocally so. Let’s give it a generous reading and accept the suggestion that the new 2007 Resolution trumps article 1.02. We’re still in trouble, because it takes an elaborate process to change the APA Ethics Code and that has not been done. Article 1.02 and other 2002 additions to the Ethics Code that privilege the requirements of U.S. law over individual professional ethics remain on the books. For example, part 2 of Ethics Code 8.05 asserts that psychologists may dispense with informed consent for research “where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.” We nit-pick because we see how hard certain officials of the APA fight to preserve certain qualifiers about what is torture and what is acceptable interrogation practice, qualifiers that are very similar to those maintained by lawyers for the Administration. Q: Sounds like you harbor a conspiracy theory.
gearing up for investigations of detainee abuse and one potential line of defense has already been floated in the press: that detainee interrogations are safe and sound because they are monitored by health care professionals armed with research on what works. The health care professionals publicly identified as involved in detainee interrogations are psychologists. Q: Aren’t psychologists permitted to work in any legitimate sphere as long as they follow ethical principles.
itself a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, making detention at Guantanamo (and presumably other similar facilities, such as the "black sites") torture in itself. The APA has acknowledged the abusive nature of such indefinite incarceration, and might be expected to require that the work of psychologists be limited to clinical treatment services in detainee prisons. This is what other professional organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Nursing Association have done. However, the APA continues to vigorously support psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations and in August 2007 its Council of Representatives defeated an amendment that would have limited military psychologists at detainee sites to clinical services. Q: If the APA started limiting what a psychologist could do, many psychologists might be in trouble, e.g. forensic psychologists who assess convicts in maximum security prisons.
detainee clinical treatment, but it is a red herring. The amendment pertained only to contexts in which legal representation was denied – a very special and unique one. Also, by explicitly and vigorously endorsing psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations without any extensive debate within the profession, the APA set a precedent that has far-reaching implications, some of them potentially harmful to psychologists doing other work. For example, when psychologists are associated with interrogations, trust in the military psychologists who provide treatment to detainees is compromised. Even more broadly, if direct involvement of psychologists in interrogations becomes common in civilian as well as military contexts and widely recognized as “something psychologists do,” then public trust of all psychologists is threatened. Q: The APA knows the critical value of psychologists to the military. In these difficult times, they must support both the military AND individual psychologists.
UN and other international human rights organizations, but alleged to be torture-free by the U.S. government. For psychologists to refuse military orders in these circumstances is very threatening, and can include court martial and imprisonment. Through ambiguous and conflicting guidelines, (e. g. Ethics Code 1.02 vs. parts of 2007 Resolution on Torture), the APA leaves its military members caught between possible court martial for disobeying orders and potential war crime trials. Compare the great speed and vigor with which the APA has supported psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations, with the long delay in developing an Ethics casebook on working in detainee sites and concrete ways to support military psychologist whistle-blowers.
regulating agencies cannot stop it. As noted in a recent draft of a Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists (line 760), “it is not legally clear whether state licensing boards can regulate persons working for federal agencies.” Still, the APA talks and acts as if it can influence what goes on in detainee interrogations. So far the real power of NGOs in detainee sites like Guantanamo appears to be the power to withhold public support for the military use of health professionals in detainee interrogations. Only the APA chooses to spend its professional clout on providing legal cover for detainee interrogators.
abusive methods of interrogation (e.g. New Yorker, MSNBC, VanityFair.com, Time, salon.com). Specific psychologists have been identified, yet the APA has not investigated them. While the officers of the APA have been available for dialogue, they subtly yet consistently protect the APA’s long-standing relationship with the US military. For example, the APA convened a Task Force to address concerns about the involvement of psychologists in detainee interrogations, but 6 of 9 voting members of the Task Force were affiliated with the military and/or intelligence agencies. Some of these members had served at Guantanamo as consultants to interrogators during the period when the press reported the greatest abuses. Q: Psychologists who assist in the interrogation of suspected terrorists contribute to our national security. To prohibit them from aiding in detainee interrogations deprives the US of their expertise and weakens our security.
interrogation methods and therefore must train and monitor interrogators is false. Good interrogation methods were developed by law enforcement officers, not psychologists. The probability that a ticking bomb will be thwarted solely by information obtained through interrogation methods that only psychologists know and can impart is effectively zero. The US Army does not lose any expertise if professionals identified as practicing psychologists are prohibited from involvement in interrogations. The Army, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc. can do what they have always done – recruit intelligence officers from various professions (law, anthropology, linguistics, psychology, etc.) Finally, numerous former generals, admirals, diplomats, and even ex-presidents have testified that the existence of Guantanamo and other abusive detention facilities are themselves threats to American national security. These facilities fuel anti-American hatred and serve as one of the most potent recruiting points for jihadists world-wide. No benefit from interrogations at these facilities could possibly match the harm to our security from fueling such intense anti-American sentiments. Further changes to APA Ethics Code over the last several years. Old: 6.12 Dispensing With Informed Consent.
questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or certain kinds of archival research) does not require the informed consent of research participants, psychologists consider applicable regulations and institutional review board requirements, and they consult with colleagues as appropriate. New: 8.05 Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research.
be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation , and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants’ employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations. Old: 6.15 Deception in Research.
use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that equally effective alternative procedures that do not use deception are not feasible. (b) Psychologists never deceive research participants about significant aspects that would affect their willingness to participate, such as physical risks, discomfort, or unpleasant emotional experiences. New: 8.07 Deception in Research.
use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible. (b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress. And here are other areas in which ethics have also been changed in ways that permit adhering to law and regulation over ethics. Old: 4.02 Informed Consent to Therapy.
language that is reasonably understandable to participants. The content of informed consent will vary depending on many circumstances; however, informed consent generally implies that the person (1) has the capacity to consent, (2) has been informed of significant information concerning the procedure, (3) has freely and without undue influence expressed consent, and (4) consent has been appropriately documented. * New: 3.10 Informed Consent.
services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals, using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. Forensic evaluations: OLD - 7.06 - Compliance With Law and Rules:
roles. Psychologists are aware of the occasionally competing demands placed upon them by these principles and the requirements of the court system, and attempt to resolve these conflicts by making known their commitment to this Ethics Code and taking steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. (See also Standard 1.02, Relationship of Ethics and Law.) NEW 2.01 (f):
or administrative rules governing their roles. Members of the Ethics Code Task Force members, 1997-2002 Peter Appleby, PhD; Bruce E. Bennett, PhD; Laura Brown, PhD; Linda F. Campbell, PhD; Nabil El- Ghoroury, PhD; Celia B. Fisher, PhD (Chair); Dennis J. Grill, PhD; Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD; Samuel J. Knapp, EdD; Gerald P. Koocher, PhD; Marcia Moody; Peter E. Nathan, PhD; Thomas D. Oakland, PhD; Mary H. Quigley; Julia M. Ramos-Grenier, PhD; Abigail Sivan, PhD; Steven N. Sparta, PhD; Elizabeth Swenson, PhD; Melba J.T. Vasquez, PhD; Brian Wilcox, PhD |