Psychology, profession in shame
The New York Times reports that the Defense Department is switching and will now use only psychologists, and not psychiatrists, to aid their torture efforts [they of course, use a euphemism] in Guantanamo. The reason is that the American Psychiatric Association has clearly stated that psychiatrists should not participate in interrogations at Guantanamo, whereas the American Psychological Association has taken a mealy-mouthed position that allows psychologists to do whatever they want. Presumably, the American Psychological Association is too addicted to its closeness to power to take any stand on one of the defining moral issues of our time.
This is a moment of crisis for the profession of psychology. Will psychologists stand for human decency, or will the profession become the whores of the Pentagon and the Guantanamo torturers? If psychologists as a group do not roundly condemn the gulag in Guantanamo and force the American Psychological Association to change its position, the profession will have given up standing for human decency and the dignity of the individual. In that case, American psychologists will deserve the badge of shame that we will receive around the world.
Here is the New York Times article in full:
June 7, 2006
Military Alters the Makeup of Interrogation Advisers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pentagon officials said Tuesday that they would try to use only psychologists, and not psychiatrists, to help interrogators devise strategies to get information from detainees at places like Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The new policy follows by little more than two weeks an overwhelming vote by the American Psychiatric Association discouraging its members from participating in those efforts.
Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, told reporters that the new policy favoring the use of psychologists over psychiatrists was a recognition of differing positions taken by their respective professional groups.
The military had been using psychiatrists and psychologists alike on behavioral science consultation teams, called “biscuit” teams because of the acronym, to advise interrogators on how best to obtain information from prisoners.
But Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, recent past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted in an interview that the group adopted a policy in May unequivocally stating that its members should not be part of the teams.
The counterpart group for psychologists, the American Psychological Association, has endorsed a different policy. It said last July that its members serving as consultants to interrogations involving national security should be “mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration.”
Stephen Behnke, director of ethics for the organization, said psychologists knew not to participate in activities that harmed detainees. But Dr. Behnke also said the group believed that helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part of an effort to prevent terrorism.
Former military interrogators at Guantánamo told The New York Times last year that some psychiatrists and psychologists had advised them on how to “break” detainees to make them more cooperative. The former interrogators said they had been counseled on how to use a detainee’s fears and longings to increase distress. One example was their taking advantage of a prisoner’s fear of the dark, known from his medical records.
Dr. Winkenwerder, the Pentagon official, disputed those assertions Tuesday, saying he did not believe that such counseling had occurred. He said the biscuit teams gave interrogators advice only on how to establish a positive rapport with detainees.
1 comment June 8th, 2006