Why Ethics Codes Fail

By Laura Stark
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published July 21, 2015

Last week, an independent investigation of the American Psychological Association found that several of its leaders aided the U.S. Department of Defense’s controversial enhanced interrogation program by loosing constraints on military psychologists. It was another bombshell in the ongoing saga of the U.S. war on terror in which psychologists have long served as foot soldiers. Now, it appears, psychologists were among its instigators, too.

Leaders of the APA used the profession’s ethics policy to promote unethical activity, rather than to curb it. How? Between 2000 and 2008, APA leaders changed their ethics policy to match the unethical activities that some psychologists wanted to carry out -- and thus make potential torture appear ethical. “The evidence supports the conclusion that APA officials colluded with DoD officials to, at the least, adopt and maintain APA ethics policies that were not more restrictive than the guidelines that key DoD officials wanted,” the investigation found, “and that were as closely aligned as possible with DoD policies, guidelines, practices or preferences, as articulated to APA by these DoD officials.” Among the main culprits was the APA’s own ethics director.

The entire article is here.

Psychologists Approve Ban on Role in National Security Interrogations

By James Risen
The New York Times
Originally posted August 7, 2015

The American Psychological Association on Friday overwhelmingly approved a new ban on any involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government, even noncoercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration.

The council of representatives of the organization, the nation’s largest professional association of psychologists, voted to impose the ban at its annual meeting here.

The vote followed an emotional debate in which several members said the ban was needed to restore the organization’s reputation in the wake of a scathing independent investigation ordered by the A.P.A.’s board.

The entire article is here.

The ethics of multiple relationships: a clinical perspective

By Stephen Behnke
The Monitor on Psychology
July/August 2015, Vol 46, No. 7
Print version: page 84

APA members contact the Ethics Office on a daily basis to discuss the ethical aspects of their work. Receiving these calls is both interesting and gratifying, and educates the office about how psychologists across the country frame the ethical questions they encounter. One of the most frequent topics is multiple relationships. During the Ethics Code revision process that ended in 2002, the Ethics Code revision task force made clear that not all multiple relationships are unethical. The task force wrote a test for determining when a psychologist should refrain from entering a multiple relationship:

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

The language of ethical standard 3.05 requires the psychologist to determine when a particular relationship would impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in doing the work of a psychologist, or would otherwise risk exploitation or harm. The standard thus illustrates clinically driven ethics.

The entire article is here.

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.

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.

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.

Argosy University Denver fined $3.3 million for deceptive practices

By Anthony Cotton
The Denver Post
Originally posted December 5, 2013

Argosy University Denver, a for-profit school, will pay $3.3 million in restitution and fines for engaging in deceptive marketing practices, the Colorado attorney general's office said Thursday.

"Our investigation revealed a pattern of Argosy recklessly launching doctoral degree programs without substantiating or supporting that they led to the advertised outcomes," Deputy Attorney General Jan Zavislan said in a statement. "That is illegal under Colorado law and why we are holding Argosy accountable."

The entire story is here.

Telepsychology Guidelines: The American Psychological Association

APA Telepsych Guidelines

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.

The web page for this member-initiated task force is here.

Here is a copy of the proposed policy:

This is a policy recommendation related to psychologists' work in national security settings and reaffirmat...

Greater awareness and funding approved to address internship imbalance

APA Access | December 11, 2012

The Education Directorate and the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students worked to raise awareness of and make strides toward solving the internship imbalance.

The Education Directorate and the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) worked extensively over the past year to promote more quality internship positions for psychology graduate students. The effort paid off when the APA Council of Representatives approved the allocation of up to $3 million over three years for a small grant program to assist internship sites with the accreditation process. This program will potentially add up to 500 APA-accredited slots to promote quality assurance in training.

The entire story is here.

Are the American Psychological Association’s Detainee Interrogation Policies Ethical and Effective? Key Claims, Documents, and Results

By Ken Pope

Abstract:

After 9–11, the United States began interrogating detainees at settings such as Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo. The American Psychological Association (APA) supported psychologists’ involvement in interrogations, adopted formal policies, and made an array of public assurances. This article’s purpose is to highlight key APA decisions, policies, procedures, documents, and public statements in urgent need of rethinking and to suggest questions that may be useful in a serious assessment, such as, “However well intended, were APA’s interrogation policies ethically sound?”; “Were they valid, realistic, and able to achieve their purpose?”; “Were other approaches available that would address interrogation issues more directly, comprehensively, and actively, that were more ethically and scientifically based, and that would have had a greater likelihood of success?”; and “Should APA continue to endorse its post-9–11 detainee interrogation policies?”

The entire article is here.

APA/ASPPB/APAIT Joint Task Force - Telepsychology- Summary Statement 2

Telepsych_TF_2

Statement of the American Psychological Association on the DSM-5 Development Process

There are a variety of posts on this blog highlighting concerns about DSM-5.  APA published this press release on December 2, 2011.

Press Release

WASHINGTON—Diagnostic classification systems of disorders and diseases are an integral part of health care delivery. Any such system, including the upcoming 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association and the pending revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) of the World Health Organization, must be based on the best available science and serve the public interest. 

The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association. This involvement includes offering comments on draft provisions and participating in field trials. 

We applaud the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of our association) for its leadership role in generating dialogue and information-sharing within the broader mental health community concerning the revisions process. The Society also has prepared, disseminated, and garnered wide support for an "open letter" to the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association, which expresses specific concerns related to the DSM-5 development process. 

We share their belief that the purpose of any diagnostic classification system should be to improve treatment outcomes. Thus it is essential to consider the impact of any new diagnostic system or category on vulnerable individuals, groups and populations, particularly children, older adults, and ethnic minorities. By appropriately identifying individuals in need of treatment, it is possible to both safeguard the welfare of individuals and to direct treatment resources where they are most needed. Concerns also have been raised that over-identification or misidentification of individuals as being in need of treatment could lead to the use of unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions.

The American Psychological Association recognizes that there is a diversity of opinion concerning the ongoing DSM-5 development process. Our association has not adopted an official position on the proposed revision; rather, we have called upon the DSM-5 Task Force to adhere to an open, transparent process based on the best available science and in the best interest of the public. In this regard, we appreciate the Task Force's expressed commitment to seriously consider the issues and concerns raised by experts in the mental health field in their deliberations.

We call upon our members (either as individuals or groups) to continue to add their perspectives to enhance the validity and clinical utility of the DSM-5. The American Psychological Association will continue to monitor the revision process and be a strong voice for its transparency. 

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 154,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.