The American Psychological Association recently refused, after a seven-year wait, to charge a psychologist that US documents clearly show was involved in torture. A different psychologist group, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, has written APA to condemn the decision. Rather than a dust-up between psychology groups, the issue goes right to the heart of the US’s ability to conduct coercive interrogations and torture with the input of behavioral specialists.
|By: Jeff Kaye Wednesday January 29, 2014 11:58 am|
|By: Jeff Kaye Wednesday August 24, 2011 9:07 pm|
A new proposed “casebook” on psychologist ethics in national security settings, written by the Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association (APA), tells psychologists that when assessing whether an interrogation technique is abusive or not, they should consider, among other factors, whether there are “data to support that the technique is effective in gathering accurate information.” This determination, which places the needs of the military or intelligence gathering entity above that of the person the psychologist is examining, demonstrates how blatantly unethical it is for psychologists to participate in these interrogations.