Psyche, Science, and Society

Withholdapadues submits ethics casebook vignette to APA, with reservations

March 5th, 2008

The American Psychological Association (APA) has an initiative to collect vignettes for a casebook on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS: the same name as the infamous rigged PENS task force). The APA Council directed that this be prepared two years ago, but, in its infinite wisdom the Ethics Commitee simply ignored that direction for years. Now, as they are trying to dampen down opposition on the interrogations issue, APA has issued a call for Vignettes. APA critics have been conflicted about participating. Sending vignettes could be construed as accepting the legitimacy of this effort. On the other hand, sending vignettes could help put pressure on APA to clarify exactly what they do calim is “ethical.” After much deliberation, the Steering Committee of withholdapadues.com decided to submit a single vignette that, in their opinion, encapsulates the issue. Their vignette is preceded by a detailed laying out of their reservations about the entire Casebook process:

March 4, 2008

Dear Ethics Committee:

We represent a group of some 340 psychologists, members of the APA, who are currently withholding their dues. With some reservations, stated below, we are responding to your request to submit critical incidents/vignettes for a casebook/commentary. The goal of the casebook, as we understand it, is to provide ethical guidelines for psychologists advising on or consulting to “national security” interrogations.

The title of this report, as it appears on the Ethics Committee website, is “Casebook/Commentary on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS).” This is of particular concern to those of us who are withholding our dues because of what we consider to have been irregularities in the original PENS process, subsequent APA policies, and the slow changes in these policies. In prior communications with Norman Anderson, we have clearly stated our overall position on PENS and the desire for psychologists to be removed from interrogations and/or detention sites that clearly violate human rights. However, we would like to continue our dialogue with the APA by submitting a vignette, which follows the reservations. Those reservations concern the casebook process, and we hope they will be taken into consideration by the Ethics Committee along with our vignette.

Here are several of our reservations:

First, as we mentioned above, we are concerned that PENS is in the title of the casebook. The PENS acronym carries meanings to which many of our members are diametrically opposed. We are looking forward to clarifications that the casebook/commentary may offer, and yet most of us believe the original PENS report should be rescinded. Therefore, we want to reiterate that the submission of this vignette is in no way a sign of support for the original PENS report, its Task Force, or any of its policies.

Second, we are concerned about the time it has taken for the casebook process to get started. We also believe the projected timeline is slow. The initial release of the PENS Task Force report was in the Summer of 2005, and this is when the need for a casebook was first expressed. The APA Council of Representatives officially requested a casebook that same summer. It is now the winter of 2008. It is believed, although has not been announced that we are publicly aware of, that the casebook is not likely to be completed before late 2008, close to the end of the U.S. presidential elections. Our hope is that a new presidency will lead to explicit bans against torture and aversive interrogation techniques, and in addition to the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay (if not other sites in which enemy combatants are held). Yet within this political and historical context, it is worth noting that this casebook has been urgently needed for several years. The timing of the release is disappointing, if not disturbing, particularly given the haste with which the PENS Task Force was formed and with which it developed its initial policy.

Third, we are concerned with procedural issues associated with the development of the casebook/commentary. The casebook is presently in the hands of the APA Ethics Committee. While some members have rotated off this committee since 2005, in large part, this is the same Ethics Committee that thoroughly endorsed the PENS process, claiming it was wholly consistent with the APA ethics code. Many of our members, in contrast, believe the PENS process was wholly inconsistent with the ethics code.

We are also concerned about the process by which submitted vignettes and critical incidents are being selected for the casebook. The Ethics Committee website suggests that not all comments received will be used. And that those sections that do get used will not necessarily be attributed to the source. That is fine and fair within the content of the casebook itself. Nevertheless, in the interests of full disclosure, we believe it is important to make public all of these submissions and their sources. (Of course, we are in complete agreement that any material that is “unprofessional, demeaning, defamatory, threatening, obscene, harassing, or in support of or opposed to a political candidate” should not be listed or considered.) It is imperative, nevertheless, that the members of the APA have a sense of who is participating in the process and therefore who is having an impact on the eventual content of the casebook, including APA staff members.

In addition to seeing the submissions and the identity of those who are providing submissions, we would like further information from the Ethics Committee about the process of creating the casebook. For instance, what are the current plans for the design of the document? How does the Ethics Committee intend to make selections and devise answers? What citations of published casebooks are being used as models for this casebook/commentary? What is the specific timeline for its completion? Will there be periodic updates? How will this casebook bear on policy, and most important-as it is likely to be used to interpret ethical standards in the Ethics Code-what are its implications for the enforceability of violations?

These are all significant reservations. Nonetheless, we appreciate the work that will go into the casebook, and we remain optimistic about the outcome. WithholdAPAdues.com is committed to continued dialogue with the Ethics Committee and the APA leadership on this and all issues.

Here is the case we would like the Ethics Committee to consider:

“A psychologist, who recently joined the military, found out that she is being sent to Guantanamo and is assigned to a Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT). Having read that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has determined that treatment equivalent to torture is taking place there and that the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that the conditions of detention in themselves are tantamount to torture, she fears that human rights are being violated in Guantanamo Bay and she is concerned that her work at this site will compromise her and inevitably lead to violations of the APA ethics code. Does being part of this team at such a site violate the APA ethics code?”

Thank you for considering our reservations and vignette.

Steering Committee

Entry Filed under: APA, Guantanamo, Interrogation, Psychology