Psyche, Science, and Society

Ken Pope opposes Nuremberg Defense in American Psychological Association ethics code

July 15th, 2009

Psychologist Ken Pope, a former Chair of the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Committee who resigned his APA membership in protest of association policy, has written a comment on the current Ethics Committee’s recommendation to retain the Nuremberg Defense ["just following orders"; ethics code standard 1.02] in the ethics code.After four years of review of the inclusion of this defense in the code the Ethics Committee has decided that they need some time to think about the issue.

For further background, one should also read the paper Pope  wrote with psychiatrist Tom Gutheil: Psychologists Abandon the Nuremberg Ethic: Concerns for Detainee Interrogations.

The take home quote from this statement:

Nuremberg’s message of inescapable ethical responsibility and
accountability came at an unfathomable price.  It should never be set
aside and forgotten, especially in a profession’s formal statement of
its ethical values.

The entire statement:

In 2002, APA changed its ethics code’s enforceable standard regarding
irreconcilable conflicts between psychologists’ “ethical
responsibilities” and “the law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority.”

The new standard 1.02 — “If the conflict is unresolvable via such
means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law,
regulations, or other governing legal authority” — opposes the
Nuremberg ethic that one cannot evade ethical responsibilities by “just
following the law,” “just following orders,” “just following
regulations,” etc.

The relation of 1.02 to torture was only one aspect of the controversy
(e.g., why APA believed it necessary to make this exemption from ethical
responsibilities an enforceable standard in its ethic’s code but
declined to allow any of its statements about torture to be made a part
of the code, and how this discrepancy might legally or practically
affect which takes precedence).

However, 1.02 allows psychologists to set aside a much larger range of
“ethical responsibilities” that do not involve torture.

One area of ethical responsibilities that do not involve torture but are
covered by the 1.02 exemption includes the responsibility to avoid the
vast set of behaviors often termed “cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment,” which human rights documents distinguish from
torture.

A second area of ethical responsibilities distinct from torture but
covered by 1.02 involves what the ethics code identifies as unfair
discrimination and other concepts associated with civil rights or fair
and just treatment

A third area covered by 1.02 but distinct from torture involves such
diverse activities as using the therapy relationship as pretense to
obtain information from or about those held in prisons, jails, holding
cells, detention centers, or other institutions; using soldiers or
civilians as human subjects without their knowledge or informed consent;
and other activities that might be undertaken in service of national
security, intelligence, or defense agencies, or under the auspices of
national, state, or local law enforcement, correctional, judicial, or
other governmental authorities.

These are but three of the areas of ethical responsibilities covered by
1.02 but not involving torture.

Having invited comments from APA members earlier this year and having
received a total of 81 comments, the Ethics Committee has recommended
that the wording of 1.02 not be changed at present and that any
potential change be deferred until the next full revision of the code.

Section 1.02 as currently written has undoubtedly gained increasing
acceptance during the last 7 years under APA’s leadership and
influence.  It became law as APA’s ethics code was adopted in many
states, and continues to be widely promoted and taught.

However, it is worth noting that some medical organizations have
continued their leadership in the opposite direction, reminding their
members and the world of the moral necessity of Nuremberg’s fundamental ethic.

For example, the World Medical Association issued a public statement
emphasizing this inescapable responsibility: “At Nuremberg in 1947,
accused physicians tried to defend themselves with the excuse that they
were only following the law and commands from their superiors…. [T]he
court announced that a physician could not deviate from his ethical
obligations even if legislation demands otherwise.”

Nuremberg’s message of inescapable ethical responsibility and
accountability came at an unfathomable price.  It should never be set
aside and forgotten, especially in a profession’s formal statement of
its ethical values.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to any lists or individuals who are
interested in these issues.

Ken Pope

Entry Filed under: APA, Interrogation, Law, Psychology, War Crimes