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

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The Ethics of Influencing the Political Process

Stephen A. Ragusea, PsyD, ABPP
Chair, Florida State Psychological Association Ethics Advisory Committee

Ethics Corner
Summer 2012


In the last edition of the Florida Psychologist, I wrote an article about how psychologists often hesitate to encourage their patients to influence the political process. Psychologists frequently fear to unfairly utilize powerful relationships, somehow pushing patients into action they would not normally take. 

However, psychologists also too often personally and professionally avoid being involved with the political process.  To some, this avoidance is incomprehensible and frustrating.  Based on my experience, psychologists usually stay out of the political process for the most common of reasons, they just feel too busy in their daily lives to take the time to participate in the fray.  And, some psychologists seem to feel as if they would be sullied somehow by wrestling in the mud of the political arena.  Of course, some folks are just plain lazy and engage is what some writers have called, “social loafing.”   My ethics chair colleague in Pennsylvania, Dr. John Gavazzi, once wrote, “Social loafing is the tendency for people to expend less effort on a given task when working in groups than when working alone.  It is easier to loaf when individual contributions are not evaluated and when the individual can rationalize that someone else will ‘pull the weight.’”

In any case, because of social loafing and a variety of other reasons, psychologists seem to avoid involvement in the political process more often that do some other professionals.   For example, based on data from a variety of sources nurses are much more involved in political and legislative matters than are we.  Nurses and physicians also contribute substantially more money to lobbying efforts than do psychologists.  These tendencies of ours endure despite the fact that we are acting against our own best interests.  We need to do much better or, very soon I fear, we risk professional oblivion.

From my perspective in the catbird’s seat, I also think there are more lofty reasons for psychologists to be actively involved in the democratic process.  I believe psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be involved with influencing the political and legal process of our society.  It is what we owe in service to our culture and our patients.

The APA Ethical Standards actually address this topic in the preamble.  Specifically, the preamble declares the following.  (Italics are added by this writer for emphasis.)

“Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people’s understanding of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society…. They strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices concerning human behavior.  In doing so, they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, diagnostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator, social interventionist….”

Therefore, beyond our own self-interest, based on our ethical standards, we are not only free to participate in the political process through political giving and social activism, but we actually have an affirmative ethical responsibility to do so.  Again, quoting John Gavazzi’s article, “Although no law, statute, or ethical code mandates ‘Thou shall participate in the political process,’ psychologists are responsible to promote our patients’ welfare.  Enhancing patient welfare can occur at the community and systems level, not just within the confines of our offices.  The goals of political advocacy are noble and worthy.”

Amen, brother John.  Is anybody out there listening?  Is anybody out there acting?


References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,Vol. 57, 1060-1073. 

Gavazzi, J. D. (2006). Legislative Efforts and Positive Ethics: Say what? The Pennsylvania Psychologist, February Quarterly, 2, 6.


If you have specific suggestions for topics to be covered in The Ethics Corner, please e-mail me with your suggestions.  My e-mail address is ragusea@aol.com