Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Psychologist Role. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychologist Role. Show all posts

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Inside the CIA's Black Site Torture Room

Larry Siems
The Guardian
Originally posted October 9, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Jessen, who interrogated Rahman six times over a two-week period, and Mitchell, who met with him once, claimed throughout the lawsuit that they tried to mitigate the harsh conditions of Rahman’s confinement. But cables show it was Jessen who debated whether to subject Rahman to enhanced interrogations techniques with CIA headquarters, and it was Jessen whose advice held sway when he and Zirbel plotted Rahman’s interrogation. “He could tell that [the site manager] was running all of his suggestions through his ‘bullshit filter,’” the investigator notes from his interview with the psychologist, but “Jessen said he was the guy with all the tricks”.

Zirbel accepted Jessen’s suggestion that when Rahman complained that he was cold, he was using a sophisticated al-Qaida resistance technique. When Rahman “claimed inability to think due to conditions (cold),” “complained about poor treatment,” and “complained about the violation of his human rights”, as a cable recorded after one of Jessen’s interrogations, these were evidence, Jessen said, of a “health and welfare” resistance strategy.

The article is here.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Nuremberg Betrayed: Human Experimentation and the CIA Torture Program

Sarah Dougherty and Scott A. Allen
Physicians for Human Rights
June 2017

Based on an analysis of thousands of pages of documents and years of research, Physicians for Human Rights shows that the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program constituted an illegal, unethical regime of experimental research on unwilling human subjects, testing the flawed hypothesis that torture could aid interrogators in breaking the resistance of detainees. In “Nuremberg Betrayed: Human Experimentation and the CIA Torture Program,” PHR researchers show that CIA contract psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen created a research program in which health professionals designed and applied torture techniques and collected data on torture’s effects. This constitutes one of the gravest breaches of medical ethics by U.S. health personnel since the Nuremberg Code was developed in the wake of Nazi medical atrocities committed during World War Two.

Delving into the role health professionals played in designing and implementing torture, the report uses newly released documents to show how the results of untested, brutal torture techniques were used to calibrate the machinery of the torture program. The large-scale experiment’s flawed findings were also used by Bush administration lawyers to create spurious legal cover for the entire program.

PHR calls on all medical and scientific communities to convene a commission to lay out what is known about the torture program, including the participation of health professionals, and urges the Trump administration to launch a criminal investigation to get a full accounting of the crimes committed by the CIA and other government agencies.

The report is here.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Psychologists in C.I.A. Torture Case

Sheri Fink
The New York Times
Originally published January 29, 2017

A federal judge on Friday allowed a case brought by former detainees to move forward against two American psychologists who helped devise the C.I.A.’s now-defunct program to interrogate terrorism suspects using techniques widely considered to be torture.

A United States District Court judge, Justin L. Quackenbush, denied a motion by the psychologists that sought to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under provisions of a 2006 law that limits the ability of detainees to challenge their treatment.

“This ruling sends the strong signal that anyone who participates in shameful and unlawful government torture can’t count on escaping accountability in a court of law,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which, with the Gibbons law firm in Newark, represents the former detainees.

The article is here.

Friday, July 15, 2016

CIA Psychologists Admit Role In ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program In Court Filing

Jessica Schulberg
The Huffington Post
Originally posted June 22, 2016

Two psychologists who helped the CIA develop and execute its now-defunct “enhanced interrogation” program partially admitted for the first time to roles in what is broadly acknowledged to have been torture.

In a 30-page court filing posted Tuesday evening, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen responded to nearly 200 allegations and legal justifications put forth by the American Civil Liberties Union in a complaint filed in October. The psychologists broadly denied allegations that “they committed torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, non-consensual human experimentation and/or war crimes” — but admitted to a series of actions that can only be described as such.

“Defendants admit that over a period of time, they administered to [Abu] Zubaydah walling, facial and abdominal slaps, facial holds, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, and placed Zubaydah in cramped confinement,” the filing says.

The article is here.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Psychologists admit harsh treatment of CIA prisoners but deny torture

By Nicholas K. Geranios
The Associated Press
Originally published June 22, 2016

Two former Air Force psychologists who helped design the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects acknowledge using waterboarding and other harsh tactics but deny allegations of torture and war crimes leveled by a civil-liberties group, according to new court records.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued consultants James E. Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen of Washington state last October on behalf of three former CIA prisoners, including one who died, creating a closely watched case that will likely include classified information.

In response, the pair’s attorneys filed documents this week in which Mitchell and Jessen acknowledge using waterboarding, loud music, confinement, slapping and other harsh methods but refute that they were torture.

“Defendants deny that they committed torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, nonconsensual human experimentation and/or war crimes,” their lawyers wrote, asking a federal judge in Spokane to throw out the lawsuit and award them court costs.

The article is here.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Newly released CIA files expose grim details of agency interrogation program

by Greg Miller, Karen Deyoung And Julie Tate
The Washington Post
Originally posted June 14, 2016

The CIA released dozens of previously classified documents Tuesday that expose disturbing new details of the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including one who died in Afghanistan in 2002 after being doused with water and chained to a concrete floor as temperatures plunged below freezing.

The files include granular descriptions of the inner workings of the CIA’s “black site” prisons, messages sent to CIA headquarters from field officers who expressed deep misgivings with how detainees were being treated and secret memos raising objections to the roles played by doctors and psychologists in the administration of treatment later condemned as torture.

But the collection also includes documents that were drafted by senior CIA officials to defend the interrogation program as it came under growing scrutiny, including a lengthy memo asserting that the use of often brutal methods had saved thousands of civilian lives.

The 50 documents included in the release were all drawn from records turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of its multi-year probe of the interrogation program.

The article is here.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

CIA torture survivors sue psychologists who designed infamous program

By Spencer Ackerman
The Guardian
Originally published October 13, 2015

Survivors of CIA torture have sued the contractor psychologists who designed one of the most infamous programs of the post-9/11 era.

In an extraordinary step, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen now face a federal lawsuit for their role in convincing the CIA to subject terror suspects to mock drowning, painful bodily contortions, sleep and dietary deprivation and other methods long rejected by much of the world as torture.

In practice, CIA torture meant disappearances, mock executions, anal penetration performed under cover of “rehydration” and at least one man who froze to death, according to a landmark Senate report last year. Versions of the techniques migrated from the CIA’s undocumented prisons, known as black sites, to US military usage at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

The entire article is here.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

An ethics lesson for psychologists: don’t participate in torture

By J Wesley Boyd
The Conversation
Originally posted April 29, 2015

The Senate’s Report on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (commonly known as the torture report) released in December 2014, confirmed that doctors and psychologists were complicit in the torture of detainees.

Two psychologists, unnamed in the report, but confirmed to be James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, designed some of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Other psychologists monitored interrogations.

A few weeks after the release of the report the president of the American Psychological Association (APA) stated that because Jessen and Mitchell are not members of the APA, the organization has no jurisdiction over them and cannot sanction them in any way. But Mitchell and Jessen weren’t the only psychologists to violate ethical standards, and the APA has yet to fully denounce psychologists' participation in torture.

The entire story is here.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture: A Reappraisal of the Argument

William O'Donohuea, Cassandra Snipesa, Georgia Daltoa, Cyndy Sotoa, Alexandros Maragakisa & Sungjin Im
Ethics & Behavior
Volume 24, Issue 2, 2014

Abstract

This article critically reviews what is known about the ethical status of psychologists’ putative involvement with enhanced interrogations and torture (EITs). We examine three major normative ethical accounts (utilitarian, deontic, and virtue ethics) of EITs and conclude, contra the American Psychological Association, that reasonable arguments can be made that in certain cases the use of EITs is ethical and even, in certain circumstances, morally obligatory. We suggest that this moral question is complex as it has competing moral values involved, that is, the humane treatment of detainee competes with the ethical value/duty/virtue of protecting innocent third parties. We also suggest that there is an ethical duty to minimize harm by making only judicious and morally responsible allegations against the psychologists alleged to be involved in EITs. Finally, we make recommendations regarding completing the historical record, improvements in the professional ethics code, and the moral treatment of individuals accused in this controversy.

The entire article is here.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Why there would have been no torture without the psychologists

By Steven Reisner
Slate
Originally published December 12, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

The psychologists were vital to the torture program for one additional reason: The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel had determined that the presence of psychologists and physicians, monitoring the state and condition of the prisoner being tortured, afforded protection for the CIA leadership and the Bush administration from liability and potential prosecution for the torture. Later, the OLC applied the same rules to the Defense Department’s “enhanced interrogation program,” which, according to an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee, was created and overseen by a team led by a clinical psychologist, and eventually overseen exclusively by clinical psychologists.

The entire article is here.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

APA names lawyer to examine claims it aided U.S. government in shielding psychologists who tortured prisoners

By John Bohannon
Science Magazine
Originally published November 17, 2014

The American Psychological Association (APA) last week named a former federal prosecutor to lead an investigation into its role in supporting the U.S. government’s interrogation of suspected terrorists.

A new book by reporter James Risen of The New York Times alleges that APA, the largest U.S. professional association of psychologists, bent its ethical guidelines to give psychologists permission to conduct such interrogations at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. The motivation, according to Risen, was to stay in the good graces of U.S. intelligence and defense officials. APA has denied the allegations and says that it worked closely with the CIA and the Pentagon "to ensure that national security policies were well-informed by empirical science."

The entire article is here.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The Role of and Challenges for Psychologists in Physician Assisted Suicide

Shara M. Johnson, Robert J. Cramer, Mary Alice Conroy, and Brett O. Gardner
Death Studies, 38: 582–588, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0748-1187 print/1091-7683 online
DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2013.820228

Abstract

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) poses complex legal and ethical dilemmas for practicing psychologists. Since the passage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act in 1997, Montana and Washington have passed similar legislation. Despite the law requiring competence evaluations by medical and psychological professionals, existing psycholegal literature inadequately addresses the role of psychologists in the PAS process. This article reviews legal statutes and analyzes ethical dilemmas psychologists may face if involved. We consider competence both generally and in the context of PAS. Suggestions are made for psychologists completing competence assessments and future directions to improve competence assessments for PAS are provided.

The entire article is here.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Medical, Military, and Ethics Experts Say Health Professionals Designed and Participated in Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment

Press Release
Institute of Medicine as a Profession


An independent panel of military, ethics, medical, public health, and legal experts today charged that U.S. military and intelligence agencies directed doctors and psychologists working in U.S. military detention centers to violate standard ethical principles and medical standards to avoid infliction of harm. The Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers (see attached) concludes that since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) and CIA improperly demanded that U.S. military and intelligence agency health professionals collaborate in intelligence gathering and security practices in a way that inflicted severe harm on detainees in U.S. custody.

These practices included “designing, participating in, and enabling torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” of detainees, according to the report. Although the DoD has taken steps to address some of these practices in recent years, including instituting a committee to review medical ethics concerns at Guantanamo Bay Prison, the Task Force says the changed roles for health professionals and anemic ethical standards adopted within the military remain in place.

“The American public has a right to know that the covenant with its physicians to follow professional ethical expectations is firm regardless of where they serve,” said Task Force member Dr. Gerald Thomson, Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Columbia University. “It’s clear that in the name of national security the military trumped that covenant, and physicians were transformed into agents of the military and performed acts that were contrary to medical ethics and practice. We have a responsibility to make sure this never happens again.”

The entire press release is here.

Thanks for Gary Schoener for this release.

Friday, August 2, 2013

APA Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists' Involvement in National Security Settings

The goal of this grassroots task force is to develop a clear, comprehensive policy statement that consolidates existing APA policies into a unified, consistent document. The consolidated policy document will highlight the following principles drawn from existing APA policies:
  1. Torture is always a violation of human rights and psychologists' professional ethics;
  2. Psychologists are always prohibited from engaging in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;
  3. Abusive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and sensory deprivation, constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and are always prohibited;
  4. The role of psychologists in unlawful detention settings is limited to working on behalf of detainees or providing treatment for military personnel;
  5. There is absolutely no defense to a violation of human rights under the APA Ethics Code.

Here is a copy of the proposed policy:

Monday, June 24, 2013

In Bed with our Clients: Should Psychotherapists Play Matchmaker or is this Plain Old Erotic Transference?

By Keely Kolmes, PsyD.
http://drkkolmes.com

Last January, there was an opinion piece in the New York Times, written by Richard Friedman on whether therapists should play Cupid for clients, basically performing as a matchmaker, setting them up on dates. The article focused primarily on the fantasies that some clinicians have about wanting to do this and the potential issues that could come up regarding transference. It did not speak directly to erotic transference, but I think this is a key component of such a question.

Following the article, HuffPost Live did a segment on which I was one of four guests interviewed about our points of view on the issue. As expected, the show included diverse opinions and even had the one clinician, Terah Harrison, who has expanded her practice to include matching services.

Another clinician, Dr. Lazarus, argued passionately that we are "uniquely well positioned" to make such matchmaking recommendations to our clients. Jeff Sumber agreed it was unethical but he admitted to having such strong fantasies about fixing up his clients that he'd deliberately scheduled people in hopes they might meet. (I imagine his clients are now wondering as they arrive for therapy if the person leaving is someone he has chosen for them?)

Guess which role I played on this segment? Yes, I was the conservative fuddy-duddy talking ethics, dual relationships, and risk management.

The entire story is here.


Thursday, November 29, 2012

The Role of Health Professionals in Detainee Interrogation


A teenager tortured at Guantanamo, and the stalled legislation to ensure clinicians "first, do no harm"

By Santiago Wills
The Atlantic
Originally published November 11, 2012

Here is one excerpt:

In the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ever since leaked reports and testimonies -- including that of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, currently on trial in Guantanamo -- were published in 2004, the issue has attracted the attention of the media, health organizations, and political activists. Psychologists and doctors have clashed with their peers and with the Department of Defense over the role that health professionals should play in interrogations, given their oath to "do no harm." The Senate Judiciary Committee and numerous military investigations have confirmed that physicians and clinicians played a significant role during so-called enhanced interrogations, either through reverse engineering of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program, or through monitoring and assisting in CIA black sites and prisons like Bagram and Guantanamo.

Recently, that conflict reached politicians in Albany, New York. This year, State Senator Thomas Duane and Assembly Member Richard Gottfried sponsored a unique piece of legislation that establishes sanctions (including license removal) for state-licensed health professionals who participate in torture or improper treatment of prisoners.

"The bill presents an opportunity to fill a gap in state law on the regulation of health professionals that desperately needs to be filled," Leonard Rubenstein, the former president of Physicians for Human Rights -- an independent organization that fights human rights violations all around the world -- said in a public forum. "Almost everyone agrees that the idea that health professionals can participate in abuse of detainees and prisoners is indefensible. If that is the case, it is also indefensible to exclude such acts from state law on licensing and regulation of health professionals."

The entire story is here.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Move Over Economists: We Need a Council of Psychological Advisers

Much of governing involves predicting behavior or getting people to change it. Lawyers and economists need some help with both.

By Barry Schwartz
The Atlantic
Originally published

Though President Obama won reelection decisively, he won't have much time to celebrate. Many of the nation's problems -- stimulating employment, reducing the deficit, controlling health-care costs, and improving the quality of education -- are very serious, and some of them must be addressed with great urgency. And none of these problems can be addressed simply by waving a magic government wand. To a significant degree, they all involve understanding what motivates current practices -- of business-people, financiers, doctors, patients, teachers, students -- and what levers we may be able to use to change those practices.

Historically, when the need has arisen to change behavior, political leaders have turned to economists. That's one reason why presidents have a Council of Economic Advisers. When economists speak, presidents listen. And when economists have the president's ear, all their whispers are predicated on a set of assumptions about human behavior. Whether it's increasing GDP, reducing unemployment, sustaining Social Security, making sure people are financially prepared for retirement, or stabilizing the financial sector, economists commonly hold certain beliefs. They will for example argue that people are motivated by self-interest and are rational calculators of their interests, and that the most effective way to get people to change the way they behave is by creating the right material incentives.

(cut)

There is also growing evidence, some of it provided by psychologists Carol Dweck and Angela Duckworth, that the focus on beefing up the cognitive components of education that has dominated reform for the last 30 years may be misplaced. More important may be efforts to cultivate motivation and character (Paul Tough's remarkable new book, How Children Succeed, provides a vivid summary of this work). The importance of character and motivation suggests that the drill-and-test model of education that has become so common may actually be not just ineffective, but counterproductive.

The entire story is here.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Court of Appeal Says Psychologist Can Be Disciplined For Misconduct as Family Law Special Master

By MetNews Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Originally Published May 11, 2012

The state Board of Psychology properly disciplined a licensee for unethical conduct while serving as a special master in a contentious family law case, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

The justices affirmed Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette’s denial of Dr. Randy Rand’s petition for writ of mandate. Rand was challenging the board’s order placing him on probation for five years, based on findings of unprofessional conduct, gross negligence, violation of statutes governing the practice of psychology, and dishonesty.

The entire article is here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Ethical Issues Related to APA’s 2005 Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security

On February 29, 2012, I posted an announcement pertaining to a new, APA member-initiated task force related to psychologists’ involvement in national security settings.

There is another group of psychologists involved in trying to shape APA policy on the ethics of psychlogists pertaining to national security: The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology.  They have called for an annulment of APA’s 2005 Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS Report).

To be as helpful, transparent, and comprehensive as possible, I posted the APA's PENS report and the Background Statement on Annulment of the APA's PENS Report from The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology in the Articles and Papers section of this site.

Readers are referred to these documents in order to have a deeper and more thorough understanding of the ethical issues related to this ongoing controversy.

John Gavazzi, PsyD ABPP
Psychologist
Board Certified in Clinical Psychology
Editor, Ethics Education and Psychology Site 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Announcing New APA Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists’ Involvement in National Security Settings

Dear Colleagues,

Many of you are aware of the petition to annul the 2005 Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (the PENS report) being circulated on behalf of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology.  This petition highlights how the PENS report (which is now out of date in important respects) is still being viewed at times as the sole or primary APA policy related to the role of psychologists in national security settings.  Yet, there are five other relevant APA Council resolutions focused on torture, ethics, detainee welfare, and interrogation dating back to 1985, along with the significant membership petition resolution in 2008 and the important changes to Standards 1.02 and 1.03 of the APA Ethics Code in 2010.

A membership-driven initiative has arisen in response to the concerns raised by the coalition.  Several leaders of Division 48 (Peace Psychology) have joined forces with a second group of APA members who represent a broad range of backgrounds and perspectives and who likewise agree that APA needs to address concerns regarding the PENS report.  Together, these two groups have formed the APA Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists’ Involvement in National Security Settings.  The goal of this task force is to develop a clear, comprehensive policy statement that consolidates existing APA policies into a unified, consistent document.  This consolidated policy will replace the PENS report, along with other Council resolutions focused on national security settings, but will not replace the broader 2006 Council Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the membership petition resolution, or the amendments to the Ethics Code, all of which will remain intact as APA policy.

Among its provisions, the consolidated policy document will include the following principles drawn from existing APA policies: 1) torture is always a violation of human rights and psychologists’ professional ethics; 2) psychologists are always prohibited from engaging in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; 3) abusive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and sensory deprivation, constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and are always prohibited; 4) the role of psychologists in unlawful detention settings is limited to working on behalf of detainees or providing treatment for military personnel; and 5) there is no defense to a violation of human rights under the APA Ethics Code.

As chair of this new task force, I am pleased to provide you with the attached announcement of our goal, rationale, membership, and work plan.  This statement has also been provided to the APA Board of Directors and Council of Representatives.  We welcome its wide dissemination.

Sincerely,

Linda M. Woolf

Policy Task Force Announcement