Archive for June 21st, 2009

Schenectady paper quotes psychologists on NY health providers torture bill

Two members of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology are quoted in this Schenectady, NY Daily Gazette article on the bill in the New york legislature to ban health professionals from participating in interrogations, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It is exciting to see the New York State Psychological Association supporting the bill. It is to be hoped that other state psychology associations, and perhaps someday the American Psychological Association as well, will copy New York’s and support similar initiatives:

Psychologist pushes ban on torture

By Sara Foss

CAPITAL REGION — As a psychologist, Steven Reisner believes his job is “to do good . . . to improve human welfare.”

Now, as a co-founder of the grassroots organization New York Campaign Against Torture, Reisner is pushing for the passage of legislation that would prohibit any licensed New York health professional from participating in interrogations or “improper treatment” of prisoners.

“Much of the Bush administration’s use of torture was guided and spread by psychologists,” Reisner said. “Health professionals are supposed to help people. They are not supposed to participate in undermining their physical or mental state. They are not supposed to use their specialized knowledge to cause people distress. That’s why I find this so reprehensible.”

If passed, the law — which advocates refer to as the anti-torture bill — would apply to both detainees held in connection with the war on terror and prisoners in the U.S.

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama released Justice Department memos detailing the harsh techniques, such as waterboarding and slamming detainees against walls, that were authorized after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and used at the Guantanamo Bay prison and other overseas detention centers. These techniques violate international and national law and are considered torture.

According to the legislation, the New York bill is guided by two basic principles: that “health care professionals shall be dedicated to providing the highest standard of health care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights,” and that “torture and improper treatment of prisoners are wrong and inconsistent with the practice of the health care professions.”

The legislation notes that “ordinarily there are limits on New York state’s jurisdiction relating to conduct outside the state or under federal authority. However, it is proper for the state to regulate health care professional licensure in relation to a professional’s conduct, even where the conduct occurs outside the state; certain wrongful out-of-state conduct is already grounds for professional discipline.”

The bill defines torture as “any intentional act or intentional omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession, punishing the person for an act the person or a third person has committed [including the holding of a belief or membership in any group] or is suspected of having committed or intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”

Under the law, health professionals would be barred from facilitating and participating in torture or improper treatment, examining, evaluating or treating a prisoner to certify whether torture or improper treatment can begin or be resumed, being present while torture or improper treatment is being administered, omitting indications of torture or improper treatment from records or reports and altering health care records to hide, misrepresent or destroy evidence of torture or improper treatment.

The legislation was proposed by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, D-Manhattan, and Senator Tom Duane, D-Manhattan. It was proposed in 2008 but only recently picked up a sponsor in the Senate.

The bill has the support of the New York State Psychological Association.

‘Do no harm’

Jerry Grodin, a Saratoga County-based psychologist and president-elect of NYSPA, said he likes the bill for several reasons: “It codifies the ethical behavior already expected of psychologists, it protects folks who might be whistle blowers and its premise is that psychologists should do no harm. . . . There are no innocent bystanders in these situations. You must report what you know.

“This is something we applaud,” Grodin said. “We think it’s a wonderful bill.”

Grodin co-chairs NYSPA’s legislative committee, which reviewed the anti-torture bill.

Reisner and other psychologists have accused the American Psychological Association of dragging its feet on the issue of torture and even enabling the Bush administration.

Last week, an article criticizing the APA written by South Carolina psychologist Bryant Welch appeared on The Huffington Post Web site. He wrote, “We now know that psychologists helped design and implement significant segments of George Bush’s torture program. Despite their credo, ‘Above all, do no harm,’ two psychologists developed instruments of psychological torture. . . . Most remarkably of all, this whole process occurred under a protective ‘ethical’ seal from the American Psychological Association [APA], psychologists’ largest national organization. The APA governance rejected calls from its membership for APA to join other health organizations in declaring participation in Bush detention center interrogations illegal.”

The APA maintains that it does not condone involvement in torture. “It’s never permitted,” said Kim Mills, a spokeswoman for the organization.

In 2008, the APA adopted an amendment to a 2007 resolution on torture to more clearly express the organization’s anti-torture policy. The amendment outlines the techniques psychologists are barred from assisting — the list includes sexual humiliation, waterboarding and exploitation of phobias — and states, “Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly planning, designing, participating in or assisting in the use of all condemned techniques at any time and may not enlist others to employ these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution’s prohibition.”

But Welch said the APA is being disingenuous and the organization’s governing structure resisted fully implementing the anti-torture resolution passed by members.

Of the New York bill, he said, “It’s something that shouldn’t be necessary.”

The New York Campaign Against Torture is a coalition of health professionals, attorneys and human rights advocates.

Reisner ran for president of the American Psychological Association on an anti-torture platform but lost.

June 21st, 2009

Scene from the Iranian Revolution: Sunday, June 21, 2009

This is reportedly video from a large rally today in Tehran:

Meanwhile, here’s another amazing scene from Saturday, with demonstrators and police almost acting as if in a choreographed play:

June 21st, 2009

Responses to the APA Board Open Letter on Interrogations Controversy

Last week the American Psychological Association Board issued a statement on the role of psychologists and interrogations. There has been much discussion of this statement on various psychologist listservs. Since each listserv has a limited audience, I put out a call for statements to be posted together. Here is what I have received so far. [I have already posted a response from bioethicist Steven Miles.]

Note to APA.
Dear Colleagues:
In reviewing the APA position on psychologists who work to assist agencies involved with inhumane and coercive means of interrogation several  points seem paramount

The first is that a professional claim for the right to practice is established by their commitment to the values that designate their work as responsibly for the public good. That standard distinguishes a profession from other guilds that seek solely the well being of their practitioners or of their benefactors.  By this measure APA has failed.

Second, the ethical standards of a profession cannot justifiably be violated by the excuse of serving one’s supervisor, one’s client or one’s political leaders. That standard was established at Nuremburg. APA has not held to this standard.

Third, psychology as a discipline has struggled against a popular image that it is and can be used for the manipulation of people’s behavior without regard to their wishes. The APA stance on coercive interrogation has diminished the public image.

Finally, “I did not know” is a very dubious professional excuse.  A professional has the obligation to find out whether rationales  offered to justify egregious behavior, “worst of the worst” “terrorist” “conduits for a war of terror against others” “needed to save lives” are in fact something more than a manipulation of pop culture by those who would justify cruelty and war in support of false claims.  Here again, APA has shown a willingness not to investigate the rationales used to recruit psychologists into clearly barbaric applications of their knowledge and skills.

APA has not helped our profession in the issue of participation in coercive interrogation. Its officers owe the public and its membership an apology.

Sincerely,

Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, The University of California
Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
494 Cragmont Ave.
Berkeley, Ca 94708
Ph/fax 510-526-0876

http://marcpilisuk.com/bio.html

******************************************

APA should make a formal announcement that it is commissioning investigations by multidisciplinary experts in the field of Psychology ethics of all identified and suspected Psychologists (APA members and APA non-members) for ethics violations .  Membership in APA of alleged violators does not matter because the intergrity of Psychology has been stained, and APA should assume the role of restoring our good name as a profession, and its own reputation as a leading organization of ethical psychologists.  APA should publicly announce the names of the ethics investigators (unlike how the membership of the PENS Task Force was handled) and disseminate the results of investigations to relevant congressional committees and chairpersons, the White House, and the respective state licensing boards of all persons under investigation. That would be a start in helping to restore Psychology’s reputation and the integrity of APA’s Governance.
I agree with Dr. Miles that APA should completely repudiate the PENS Task Force, and an openly acknowledge that the PENS Task Force was riddled with conflicts of interest.   The honorable thing for Dr. Behnke to do is resign.  In the absence of that he should be asked to resign his position as Director of the Ethics Office.    I also think it is time to consider calling for the replacement of many if not all of the non-elected officers and leadership of the APA.
Bob Parker PhD
******************************************

The APA statement of “profound regret” seem heartfelt enough, but remarkably absent of analysis or reflection; a severe case of what Jules Henry used to term “lack of circumspection”.

The big silence of course, is that it totally elides the central issue of why APA as an institution was steadfastly committed to enabling, denying, defending and obfuscating the involvement of psychologists in this abuse. The APA letter states that “countless” psychologists in the military and intelligence sectors behaved ethically and a few did not, invoking the same “bad apple” paradigm that was asserted in the Abu Ghraib investigations and in the South African Truth and Reconciliation hearings for that matter. The issue is transformed into a moral drama, where we can righteously proclaim that even one instance of torture is one too many.

Until APA can get past its bias for de-contextaulized, individualistic explanation, it will never begin to see the structural links between psychology and the military that made this abuse all but certain. I’m not holding my breath.

Best,

Jim Statman

James M. Statman, Ph.D
Chief of Party
Zimbabwe HIV & AIDS Partnership Project
Harare, Zimbabwe

******************************************
I’ve spent the morning fielding disapproving emails from the former presidents of several APA divisions, including Division 39, for my posting the letter from the APA Board of Directors accompanied by the following, on several other professional lists :

“The below letter by the APA Board of Directors, purporting to address the issues associated with psychologists’ involvements in so-called “enhanced interrogations” of so-called “enemy combatants” (read: torture of people designated as outside of the protections of American law and the Geneva Conventions) can only be seen as a continuation of bad-faith disinformation and cover-up, in my opinion.”

Their comments took me to task for:

“bad manners”; for my “editorializing”; for my ‘tone” (self-righteous); my lack of appreciation of “complexity and ambiguity”; and not being sufficiently “thoughtful” as someone with “the seniority implied in your email signature requires that you hold yourself to a high standard.”

I responded to them as follows:

“I welcome your response, as I think that the more the issue is talked about, the more likely the entire truth will come to be known. With all due respect, I must disagree with [the characterization of] the plethora of information that has been snowballing for years (beginning with responses to the whitewashing 2005 PENS Report) and from a great many quarters and multitude of sources, as merely “one article accurate” (sic); [Bryant] Welch’s article is just the latest of a great many, both from outside, as well as inside the APA, now approaching some of its highest reaches.”

And:

” I’m sure that you know that I like and respect you, so it pains me to receive this message from you. I double-checked my earlier message replies, and see that, as I’d originally thought, [the dissenting] response did in fact go to all the lists, so I didn’t see any reason not to continue, what I hope is an open dialogue on the issues. [Your email]f eels to me like an attempt to close that down. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with posting my opinion, which I clearly intentionally stated as such. I do understand that my opinion is not one that everyone will appreciate, or agree with, though I feel certain that I know you well enough to think that you would agree that my right to state my opinion as such is something we would all support.

I do feel unequivocally that clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts and those in the treating professions have absolutely no place in participating in the torture or mistreatment of anyone, which it seems clear that the APA and psychologists have been centrally involved in. I do feel let down by the APA and the Division on these important matters. I do feel that there has been, to say the least, a less than forthright response to these matters, and one that I feel sadly deviates from the ethical and humanistic ideals of the profession. I don’t write any of that easily or lightly, and it pains me to think this. I know that you know that there are many others whom we both respect who feel similarly. It is hard to not sound indignant and outraged about what I feel has been a misuse of the profession.”

Best,

Stefan

P.S. It should be noted that one of the former APA Division Presidents who were highly critical of what I’d written about the letter from the APA Board, in response to my answer to them, sent a follow-up email characterizing their initial reaction as an “over-reaction and ill-considered”.

Stefan R. Zicht, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalyst

Co-Director
Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis
80 Broad Street, Suite 902
New York, NY 10004
http://www.manhattanpsychoanalysis.com

Past-President, Division of Psychoanalysis, New York State Psychological Association (NYSPA)

******************************************

“I usually just read the email on this list, but I am also disturbed by the spin being taken by the APA Board of Directors in their recent  letter. First, they are trying to place the blame on the actions of a few unnamed psychologists rather than addressing the action (or inaction) of the leadership and staff of APA. Second, they are taking credit for positions on torture which were forced upon them by the actions of the membership. When are they going to admit some responsibility for actions which have cast a bad light on all of psychology?  Is there anything we can do about this?”
Rhoda Unger, Ph.D.
Resident Scholar
Women’s Studies Research Center
Brandeis University (MS 079)

******************************************

Regarding APA Board letter on involvement of psychologists in torture

The Ethics of Preparing Soldiers to Return to Combat

The APA Board statement failed to mention another even more prevalent way that psychologists participate in unethical activities for their government.  When soldiers are having strong emotional reactions to killing and injuring other human beings, they are often “treated” by psychologists.  A major role for these psychologists is to help the soldier overcome concerns, which reflect their basic humanity, and get them back to the business of war.  That business, which military psychologists provide support for, involves killing, maiming, inflicting pain, and creating refugees, orphans, and psychological dysfunction.  War is essentially torture for hundreds of thousands of people.

Neither Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Pakistan has attacked the U.S. or its allies.  All psychologists who participate directly or indirectly in the current U.S. wars and in war crimes should be held accountable for their unethical behavior, expelled from APA, and be stripped of their licenses to practice psychology.

It is appropriate that the board’s letter concludes by reminding us of psychology’s longstanding commitment to the protection of human welfare. When it comes to causing pain and killing people, psychology must set a higher standard than the American government.  We should be leaders and not followers.

Michael D. Knox, Ph.D.
APA Fellow

Distinguished Professor of Mental Health Law and Policy Distinguished Professor of Medicine Distinguished Professor of Global Health Distinguished Professor of Psychology Distinguished Professor of Aging Studies
College of Behavioral and Community Sciences University of South FloridaTampa, FL
******************************************

June 21st, 2009


Pages

Calendar

June 2009
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category