Citation

Patel NA, Elkin GD. AMA J. Ethics 2015; 17(10): 924-930.

Affiliation

Clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, where he co-leads the coordination of clinical psychiatry rotations and leads seminars on psychiatric assessment, critical thinking, and medical humanities. He completed his MD at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and a residency in internal medicine and psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, and the editor of Introduction to Clinical Psychiatry (Lange, 1999) and an upcoming book chapter on medical ethics.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, American Medical Association)

DOI

10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.10.nlit1-1510

PMID

26496055

Abstract

On July 2, 2015, a 542-page report, “Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture,” was submitted to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association (APA) [1]. This review was commissioned after a decade of intense scrutiny, principally by journalists and activist groups such as the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, of the APA’s unethical involvement with governmental agencies, particularly the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2].

The review highlights that the ethical guidelines on interrogation issued by the APA were intentionally ambiguous in the interest of currying favor with the DoD and CIA [1]. Given that the APA represents the interests of professional psychology, its condoning psychologists’ participation in “enhanced interrogation” or torture had significant consequences. The report details how an APA ethics task force obfuscated the language of its ethical guidelines and de facto allowed psychologists to play a role in “enhanced interrogations” and torture.

The Context
The 2002 White House Office of Legal Counsel’s “torture memos” [3-5] laid the groundwork for the Bush Administration’s approval of the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation” methods. Central to the memos was a narrow definition of “torture” as acts that cause pain and “serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” [3]. The temporary or long-lasting mental distress and psychological harm that detainees faced would not be considered torture if the interrogators had not “specifically intended to cause severe…mental pain or suffering” [4]. The argument was that interrogators would safeguard against potential abuses by “consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience” [3]. Because the American Medical Association [6] and American Psychiatric Association [7] prohibited their members from participating in torture, “experts” meant psychologists. Thus the American Psychological Association’s statements on ethical matters are not merely abstract ideals, but instructions for psychologists, including those working in the government sector....

Language: en