More on the APA and ethical concerns
Psychologist Ken Pope posted the following commentary to his mail list, and I am reproducing it here in its entirety with his permission. Ken is much more polite in his criticism of the American Psychological Association (APA) on ethical issues than I have been and I have great admiration for the way he has tried to publicize these critical issues.
For more than a decade, I have been critical of what I view as the APA’s failure to set and enforce high ethical standards and as I have mentioned previously, I resigned my membership precisely over their failure to permit conduct that I view as unethical. Elsewhere on this blog, I have also expressed my strong criticisms of them for providing an exemption for “media psychologists,” some of who I believe turn diagnosis and mental health issues into “entertainment” or a parlor game instead of educating the public on the genuine professional issues and need for thorough examination. But while the issue of media psychologists and the potential harm that I think they may do to both the profession and individuals is a serious issue, it is clearly not as serious as issues of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment that Ken addresses below.
In 2002, APA changed its ethics code’s enforceable standard regarding irreconcilable conflicts between psychologists’ “ethical responsibilities” and “the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.”
The new standard 1.02 — “If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” — opposes the Nuremberg ethic that one cannot evade ethical responsibilities by “just following the law,” “just following orders,” “just following regulations,” etc.
The relation of 1.02 to torture was only one aspect of the controversy (e.g., why APA believed it necessary to make this exemption from ethical responsibilities an enforceable standard in its ethic’s code but declined to allow any of its statements about torture to be made a part of the code, and how this discrepancy might legally or practically affect which takes precedence).
However, 1.02 allows psychologists to set aside a much larger range of “ethical responsibilities” that do not involve torture.
One area of ethical responsibilities that do not involve torture but are covered by the 1.02 exemption includes the responsibility to avoid the vast set of behaviors often termed “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” which human rights documents distinguish from torture.
A second area of ethical responsibilities distinct from torture but covered by 1.02 involves what the ethics code identifies as unfair discrimination and other concepts associated with civil rights or fair and just treatment
A third area covered by 1.02 but distinct from torture involves such diverse activities as using the therapy relationship as pretense to obtain information from or about those held in prisons, jails, holding cells, detention centers, or other institutions; using soldiers or civilians as human subjects without their knowledge or informed consent; and other activities that might be undertaken in service of national security, intelligence, or defense agencies, or under the auspices of national, state, or local law enforcement, correctional, judicial, or other governmental authorities.
These are but three of the areas of ethical responsibilities covered by 1.02 but not involving torture.
Having invited comments from APA members earlier this year and having received a total of 81 comments, the Ethics Committee has recommended that the wording of 1.02 not be changed at present and that any potential change be deferred until the next full revision of the code.
Section 1.02 as currently written has undoubtedly gained increasing acceptance during the last 7 years under APA’s leadership and influence. It became law as APA’s ethics code was adopted in many states, and continues to be widely promoted and taught.
However, it is worth noting that some medical organizations have continued their leadership in the opposite direction, reminding their members and the world of the moral necessity of Nuremberg’s fundamental ethic.
For example, the World Medical Association issued a public statement emphasizing this inescapable responsibility: “At Nuremberg in 1947, accused physicians tried to defend themselves with the excuse that they were only following the law and commands from their superiors…. [T]he court announced that a physician could not deviate from his ethical obligations even if legislation demands otherwise.”
Nuremberg’s message of inescapable ethical responsibility and accountability came at an unfathomable price. It should never be set aside and forgotten, especially in a profession’s formal statement of its ethical values.
