PENS Task Force members Jean Maria Arrigo and Nina Thomas to talk in New York
November 13th, 2007
An important upcoming event in the New York area :
PSYCHOLOGY, INTERROGATION & THE APA:
A CONVERSATION WITH
JEAN MARIA ARRIGO & NINA THOMASSection 9 of APA Division 39 [Psychoanalysts for Social Responsibility] is cosponsoring an informal panel with the NYU PostDoctoral prorgam in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy on Tuesday, December 18, to begin at 8 p.m. at NYU Kimmel Hall, 60 Washington Square South, Room 405.
This informal conversation features two members of the PENS (Psychological Ethics and National Security) Task Force, Jean Maria Arrigo and Nina Thomas, who will discuss their experiences participating in the task force, and where things have evolved since then. Jean Maria Arigo has been maligned by prominent APA officials following her description of procedural flaws in the PENS process. Her observations have supported previous reports of a complex relationship between APA and the Department of Defense/CIA, leading to the American Psychological Association remaining the one organization that has not banned the participation of its members in interrogation at military detention centers, as the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association have.
Nina Thomas has been at the forefront of these critical discussions.
We hope that this conversation, moderated by Neil Altman (author of the moratorium resolution, which would have banned psychologists’ participation in interrogation), will shed light on the difficult situation and the challenge to our professional ethics that the profession of psychology is now facing, and the overall complexity of the issues at hand. Many have raised questions on the Postdoc listserve with regard to this issue, and we are hoping that this joint venture between Section 9 and NYU Postdoc will help provide a forum to inform members of the greater community, as well as an opportunity to discuss all aspects of this issue with the leaders in this field. Organized by Section 9: Lu Steinberg & Steve Botticelli.
If you’d like to attend, please RSVP to Lu Steinberg at 212-757-0902.
Entry Filed under: APA, Guantanamo, International Law, Interrogation, Psychoanalysis, Psychological Torture, Psychology, Torture, War Crimes
2 Comments Add your own
1. Larry Welkowitz | November 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Up here at Keene State College a number of us are considering resigning from APA to protest failure to stop psychologists from consulting on torture. Is there any information on how many have resigned?
2. Michael Schwartz | February 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Of interest to group. Please download - comments can be added to web-page. Comments welcome.
http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/3
The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process
Brad Olson, Stephen Soldz, Martha Davis
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:3 (29 January 2008)
Abstract
The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA’s long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights.
Michael Schwartz
Editor-in-Chief
Philosophy, Ethics,and Humanities in Medicine
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed