When the Patient Is Racist

By PAULINE W. CHEN
The New York Times - Doctor and Patient
Originally published July 25, 2013

Here is an excerpt:

The patient had suffered only broken bones, so after my evaluation I was happy to leave him to the orthopedic surgeons. When I expressed my relief to a colleague, he smiled. “I’m sure it freaked him out to have an Asian woman taking charge of his care,” he said after I had described the patient’s menacing tattoo and threatening reaction to me.

But then my colleague paused. “What you need to do is turn this into a ‘teaching moment,’” he finally said without the slightest hint of irony. “Sit down with the patient and educate him about racism.”

I remembered this colleague’s naïve remark, and the burly patient with the swastika tattoo, when I read an essay by Dr. Sachin H. Jain in a recent issue of The Annals of Internal Medicine on the medical profession’s attitude toward patients who discriminate against doctors.

Since Hippocrates, physicians have embraced the ideal of caring for all patients, regardless of who they might be. While the father of medicine struggled to be open-minded when it came to caring for slaves, doctors more recently have wrestled with caring for patients’ of different races, gender and sexual orientation. In 2000, the American Medical Association codified its opinion on the issue, issuing in its code of ethics a mandate that doctors could not refuse to care for patients based on any “invidious” discriminatory criteria like race or ethnicity.

The entire story is here.

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...

An Ethical Prohibition that Isn’t — And Never Really Was

By Robert E. Erard, Ph.D.
The National Psychologist
March 11, 2013

A decade after the 2002 APA Ethics Code and the HIPAA Privacy Rule should have settled the matter many psychologists continue to believe fervently that they have some special ethical duty to resist all formal requests for their raw test data, even when these requests are accompanied by releases from the test taker and even by subpoenas or court orders.

When asked for their test data, some psychologists claim paternalistically that nobody could ever understand what these mysterious numbers mean without being a licensed psychologist. They seem to ignore the fact that we ourselves have an ethical duty (Ethical Standard 9.10; APA, 2002) to provide test feedback (i.e., explaining those numbers), not to mention that most test publishers routinely sell test forms and computerized test interpretations to psychiatrists, social workers, counselors and others.

Other psychologists contend that either test copyrights or licensing agreements with test publishers prevent them from complying with these requests. They overlook the fact that the Fair Use Doctrine under the Copyright Act of 1976 (2011), the legal rights of test takers to their health care information and discovery rules governing the bases for experts’ opinions in forensic matters have consistently trumped these arguments when they have been put to the test (e.g., see Carpenter v. Yamaha, 2006).

The entire story is here.

Anthropologists Approve Ethics Code

By Scott Jaschik
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published November 7, 2012

After five years of study, the American Anthropological Association has adopted a new code of ethics. In a vote of members, 93 percent approved of the statement, which shifts away from a legal-type list of specific prohibitions (a characteristic of past codes) and stresses general principles.

As a discipline, anthropology has at times been divided over ethics, with many in the field feeling shame over early work in the field that was used to promote imperialism and with more recent debate over whether it is appropriate for anthropologists to work with the U.S. military. But debate over the new code (as is reflected in the overwhelming vote to approve it) was not as intense as discussions in recent years over very specific questions, such as whether anthropologists should work to help American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The entire story is here.

Coalition Responds to Invitation from APA's "PENS II" Task Force

The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology has been invited to nominate a consultant to “review materials” for the American Psychological Association’s so-called “member-initiated task force.” This task force purports to “reconcile policies related to psychologists’ involvement in national security settings.” We have declined the invitation because we reject both the aims and the legitimacy of this task force (hereafter referred to as “PENS II”) – and we discourage others from participating.

The entire response is here.

Others posts about the PENS report can be found by searching this blog via the "search" function.

Here is a portion of the response:

"Since the PENS Report became APA policy in 2005, subsequent APA policies related to interrogations (with the exception of the Referendum) have been framed in ways largely consistent with the PENS Report. As such, they are all “fruit of a poisoned tree.” Any constructive attempt to consolidate national security policies must therefore begin with annulment of the PENS Report in order to remove its corrosive influence on the profession of psychology and on the unexamined proliferation of operational psychology in coercive contexts.

The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology unequivocally rejects collaboration with the illegitimate PENS II “task force” and calls for its dissolution. We further encourage others to refuse to collaborate with this effort aimed at undermining true reform. PENS II is built upon faulty premises. If successful, it would enshrine one of the darkest initiatives in APA policy-making."

Vignette 14: The Psychology of Advertising

Dr. Ron Popeil, a local psychologist, is upgrading his web site.  Along with a variety of upgrades, the web developer/consultant suggests that he add a testimonial page where former patients describe their positive experiences in therapy.  Since the web developer/consultant wants to get that page up and running, he suggests that they use some positive ratings and responses from Angie’s list and several other ratings sites that tell positive stories and experiences with Dr. Popeil.

Dr. Popeil thinks these ideas are good.  However, he researches the APA Ethics Code and believes that he may be acting inappropriately.  To discuss the matter in further detail,  Dr. Popeil calls you for an ethics consult.

What are the ethical issues involved in this situation?

Are there any other concerns about the web developer/consultant’s strategies?

What are some recommendations that you would make to the psychologist?

Protecting Psychologists Who Harm: The APA's Latest Wrong Turn

By Roy Eidelson
Truth-out.org
Opinion

Shortly after learning about the American Psychological Association's (APA) late February announcement of its new Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists' Involvement in National Security Settings, I found my thoughts turning to the School of the Americas, Blackwater and perhaps even more surprisingly, the Patagonian toothfish. Those may seem like a strange threesome, but they share one important thing in common. All have undergone a thorough repackaging and renaming in a marketing effort aimed at obscuring - but not altering - some ugly truth.

(cut)

What can annulment of the PENS Report accomplish? First, annulment will serve to indisputably repudiate the illegitimate process by which the military-intelligence establishment took control over the core ethics of psychology as a profession. Second, annulment will set the stage for a long-overdue transparent, broad-based and independent examination - by psychologists, by human rights advocates, by national security experts and by ethicists - of whether or not it is ethical for psychologists to serve in aggressive operational roles in national security settings. More than a decade has passed since the attacks of 9/11, yet this fundamental question has never been honestly and openly addressed. Indeed, the PENS Report was strategically designed to take this question off the table - by offering the mere pretense of meaningful discussion and debate.

The entire story is here.

A blog post referencing the member-initiated task force is here.

A blog post referencing the PENS report is here.

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

A High Risk Situation: The Suicidal Client

Gary Schoener

From our experience, psychologists and students frequently look for excellent resources for dealing with suicidal patients.  Working with suicidal patients can become time intensive and emotionally draining.  Psychologists need to become educated and remain current with their training.  Consulting with other psychologists when dealing with at-risk patients is always recommended.



Gary Schoener, noted ethics educator, permitted our committee to post this resource when dealing with suicidal patients.

Suicide Handout

Psychologist withdraws SJC appeal on license

BY: Colman M Herman and Bruce Mohl
CommonWealth

August 24, 2011

A female psychologist who had sex with a former patient is withdrawing her court appeal seeking the return of her license.

Brookline psychologist Mary O’Neill acknowledged having a sexual relationship with her patient, Eric MacLeish, just weeks after his therapy sessions ended. The standard punishment in such cases is permanent license revocation, but O’Neill filed an appeal with the state Supreme Judicial Court arguing that her license should be only temporarily suspended because her lapse in judgment was caused by the collapse of her own marriage.

The case was scheduled to be heard next month, but SJC Clerk Susan Mellen said O’Neill’s attorney told her he is withdrawing the appeal. Mellen said some paperwork must be completed before the withdrawal is official, but she says she has already told the SJC justices not to bother studying the case files. The Associated Press reported that O’Neill’s attorney  confirmed he was withdrawing the appeal, but gave no reason for the decision. The attorney could not be reached by CommonWealth.

The case was the focus of a lengthy article on CommonWealth’s website that dealt with the legal issues involved as well as O’Neill’s high-profile patient, MacLeish. MacLeish is an attorney who represented many of the clients who sued the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston alleging priests had sexually abused them. The case brought MacLeish national attention, but court records indicate it also scarred him emotionally and made him realize that he had been sexually abused as a child at the hands of a teacher at a boarding school in England and by a scoutmaster associated with the school.

In 2004, MacLeish turned to O’Neill for help. She diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and treated him for 10 sessions between August and September 2004. Shortly after those sessions ended, the two were sleeping together.

Linda Jorgenson, a Massachusetts attorney who has represented hundreds of people who have claimed their therapists abused them sexually, said she couldn’t understand why O'Neill would withdraw her appeal. "Her briefs have been filed. All that is left is for the oral argument to take place in September,” she said. “I don't see anything that she had to lose by waiting for the court to issue its ruling."

Thanks to Gary Schoener for the information.

The reader can find the earlier blog post here.

The Menace Within: The Stanford Prison Experiment

What happened in the basement of the psych building 40 years ago shocked the world. How do the guards, prisoners and researchers in the Stanford Prison Experiment feel about it now?

By Romesh ratnesar

It began with an ad in the classifieds.

Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks. More than 70 people volunteered to take part in the study, to be conducted in a fake prison housed inside Jordan Hall, on Stanford's Main Quad. The leader of the study was 38-year-old psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. He and his fellow researchers selected 24 applicants and randomly assigned each to be a prisoner or a guard.

Zimbardo encouraged the guards to think of themselves as actual guards in a real prison. He made clear that prisoners could not be physically harmed, but said the guards should try to create an atmosphere in which the prisoners felt "powerless."

The study began on Sunday, August 17, 1971. But no one knew what, exactly, they were getting into.

Forty years later, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains among the most notable—and notorious—research projects ever carried out at the University. For six days, half the study's participants endured cruel and dehumanizing abuse at the hands of their peers. At various times, they were taunted, stripped naked, deprived of sleep and forced to use plastic buckets as toilets. Some of them rebelled violently; others became hysterical or withdrew into despair. As the situation descended into chaos, the researchers stood by and watched—until one of their colleagues finally spoke out.

The public's fascination with the SPE and its implications—the notion, as Zimbardo says, "that these ordinary college students could do such terrible things when caught in that situation" —brought Zimbardo international renown. It also provoked criticism from other researchers, who questioned the ethics of subjecting student volunteers to such extreme emotional trauma. The study had been approved by Stanford's Human Subjects Research Committee, and Zimbardo says that "neither they nor we could have imagined" that the guards would treat the prisoners so inhumanely.

In 1973, an investigation by the American Psychological Association concluded that the prison study had satisfied the profession's existing ethical standards. But in subsequent years, those guidelines were revised to prohibit human-subject simulations modeled on the SPE. "No behavioral research that puts people in that kind of setting can ever be done again in America," Zimbardo says.

The Stanford Prison Experiment became the subject of numerous books and documentaries, a feature film and the name of at least one punk band. In the last decade, after the revelations of abuses committed by U.S. military and intelligence personnel at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, the SPE provided lessons in how good people placed in adverse conditions can act barbarically.

The experiment is still a source of controversy and contention—even among those who took part in it. Here, in their own words, some of the key players in the drama reflect on their roles and how those six days in August changed their lives.

     *          *          *          *          *

The entire article can be here.  The article brings up a host of ethical issues related to research.

The Dark Side of "Comprehensive Soldier Fitness"

opednews.com
By Roy Eidelson, Marc Pilisuk, and Stephen Soldz  

Why is the world's largest organization of psychologists so aggressively promoting a new, massive, and untested military program? The APA's enthusiasm for mandatory "resilience training" for all U.S. soldiers is troubling on many counts.

The January 2011 issue of the American Psychologist, the American Psychological Association's (APA) flagship journal, is devoted entirely to 13 articles that detail and celebrate the virtues of a new U.S. Army-APA collaboration. Built around positive psychology and with key contributions from former APA president Martin Seligman and his colleagues, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is a $125 million resilience training initiative designed to reduce and prevent the adverse psychological consequences of combat for our soldiers and veterans. While these are undoubtedly worthy aspirations, the special issue is nevertheless troubling in several important respects: the authors of the articles, all of whom are involved in the CSF program, offer very little discussion of conceptual and ethical considerations; the special issue does not provide a forum for any independent critical or cautionary voices whatsoever; and through this format, the APA itself has adopted a jingoistic cheerleading stance toward a research project about which many crucial questions should be posed. We discuss these and related concerns below.

At the outset, we want to be clear that we are not questioning the valuable role that talented and dedicated psychologists play in the military, nor certainly the importance of providing our soldiers and veterans with the best care possible. As long as our country has a military, our soldiers should be prepared to face the hazards and horrors they may experience. Military service is highly stressful, and psychological challenges and difficulties understandably arise frequently. These issues are created or exacerbated by a wide range of features characteristic of military life, such as separation from family, frequent relocations, and especially deployment to combat zones with ongoing threats of injury and death and exposure to acts of unspeakable violence. The stress of repeated tours of duty, including witnessing the loss of lives of comrades and civilians, can produce extensive emotional and behavioral consequences that persist long after soldiers return home. They include heightened risk of suicide, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, and family violence.

(dropping to the ethical concerns)

Ethical Concerns

We also believe that other key aspects of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness should have received explicit discussion in this special issue. It is standard practice for an independent and unbiased ethics review committee (an "institutional review board" or "IRB") to evaluate the ethical issues arising from a research project prior to its implementation. This review and approval process may in fact have occurred for CSF, but the manner in which the principals blur "research" and "training" leads us to wish for much greater clarity here. This process is even more critical given that the soldiers apparently have no informed consent protections -- they are all required to participate in the CSF program. Such research violates the Nuremberg Code developed during the post-World War II trials of Nazi doctors. That code begins by stating:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

Disturbingly, however, this mandatory participation in a research study does not violate Section 8.05 of the APA's own Ethics Code, which allows for the suspension of informed consent "where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations." Despite the APA's stance, we should never forget that the velvet glove of authoritarian planning, no matter how well intended, is no substitute for the protected freedoms of individuals to make their own choices, mistakes, and dissenting judgments. Respect for informed consent is more, not less, important in total environments like the military where individual dissent is often severely discouraged and often punished.

More broadly, the 13 articles fail to explore potential ethical concerns related to the uncertain effects of the CSF training itself. In fact, the only question of this sort raised in the special issue -- by Tedeschi and McNally in one article and by Lester, McBride, Bliese, and Adler in another -- is whether it might be unethical to withhold the CSF training from soldiers. Certainly, there are other ethical quandaries that require serious discussion if the CSF program's effectiveness is to be appropriately evaluated. For example, might the training actually cause harm? Might soldiers who have been trained to resiliently view combat as a growth opportunity be more likely to ignore or under-estimate real dangers, thereby placing themselves, their comrades, or civilians at heightened risk of harm?

The entire piece can be read here.

When Colleagues Make Mistakes

By Stephen A. Ragusea, PsyD, ABPP

Guest Blogger

At least once a month, I receive a telephone call from a Florida psychologist who tells me that he or she knows that a colleague -- or a practitioner of a different profession -- is guilty of committing an ethical violation.  The psychologist then typically asks if I agree with their appraisal of the situation and expresses frustration regarding the problem.  Finally, they ask what they should do, often expecting that the Florida Psychological Associaton (FPA) will handle the problem.  They often express surprise when I remind them that, according to our Ethical Principles, their first responsibility is to have a little talk with the alleged offender. 

The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002) suggests that our first obligation in these situations is to first seek an “informal” solution through professional consultation.  Specifically, Principle 1.04 states:

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations

When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved. (See also Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands.)

But what happens if the offender isn’t willing to change or just pretends to seriously address the problem?  Or what happens if they insist the problem doesn’t exist?  I then explain that it may be necessary for them to report the matter to the appropriate professional board.  At that point, we consider Principle 1.05.  If the alleged offender is a psychologist, then the problem would be reported to the Florida Board of Psychology at 850- 488-0595, or referred to the APA Ethics Committee.   If, however, the practitioner is a member of a different profession, then the appropriate professional board must be contacted.  However, one must always remember that the ethical standards of the individual’s profession are those that apply, not those of the American Psychological Association.  Psychology’s ethical standards only apply to psychologists.  Of course, if the individual isn’t a member of any recognized profession, ethical considerations are unenforceable and little can be done as long as the person is functioning within the law.

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations

If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.  Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question.  (See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority.)

For a variety of reasons, psychologists are often unwilling to confront these problems in either way outlined above.  For example, sometimes psychologists are afraid of insulting the other professional or sometimes they fear some form of retribution.  However, we must all have a little courage and remember that it part of our own ethical duty to address these matters in a productive, professional, and effective manner.  We’re all in this together and we’re all trying to serve humanity well.  Don't be afraid to make a constructive intervention; we can all do better!

Psychologist Seeks Return of License

By Colman Herman

CommonWealth

June 22, 2011

A female psychologist is asking the state's Supreme Judicial Court for her license back even though she violated one of the cardinal rules of her profession by having sex with a former patient.

The standard punishment for someone in the medical and related professions who has sex with a patient or former patient is permanent revocation of his or her license. Officials at several of the boards that oversee health professionals said they couldn’t recall an instance where a practitioner who had sex with a patient failed to lose his or her license.

But Brookline psychologist Mary O'Neill says she deserves another chance. She acknowledges beginning a sexual relationship with her patient, Eric MacLeish, just weeks after his therapy sessions ended, yet says her license shouldn’t be permanently revoked because her lapse in judgment was caused by a marriage that had collapsed.

O’Neill petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to review her license revocation by the Board of Registration in Psychology.  Subsequently, she and the board jointly asked the full court to hear the case, which it agreed to do. Oral arguments are scheduled for this fall.

O’Neill is arguing that the psychology board “arbitrarily and capriciously” refused to consider the mitigating evidence she presented. Rather than revoking her license, she says the board should have suspended her license for a year and then allowed her to resume work on a probationary basis for a year. She says she would continue to receive personal psychotherapy and have her work supervised by a peer. O’Neill also says she would do 100 hours of community service.

The psychology board’s regulations adopt the code of conduct of the American Psychology Association. The code states that “psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients” nor with “former clients for at least two years after cessation of therapy.” Beyond two years, sex between a psychologist and patient is permitted only if the therapist can prove there has been no exploitation. The regulations also say it is not a defense to say the patient consented. The regulations were crafted to prevent psychologists from exploiting the tremendous power they often have over their patients and former patients.

In its April 2010 decision, the psychology board held that O’Neill’s marriage crisis “no doubt exacted a significant emotional toll” on her and that her “marriage crisis can be understood to have ‘clouded’ her judgment.” But the board nonetheless revoked her license, saying her care was the “antithesis of treatment” and her “conduct abrogates a basic tenet of the psychology profession: trust.”

The entire article can be found here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.

Amending the Ethics Code

APA’s Council of Representatives voted to amend the association’s Code of Ethics to make clear that its standards can never be interpreted to justify or defend violating human rights.

The action, which came during the winter meeting of APA’s governing Council of Representatives, amended the code’s Introduction and Applicability section, as well as Ethical Standards 1.02 and 1.03, to resolve any potential ambiguity in the original language. These changes become effective June 1, 2010.

“APA’s longstanding policy is that psychologists may never violate human rights,” said APA President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD, announcing the changes. “These standards now unquestionably conform to that policy.”

The standards, from APA’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002), address situations where psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, other governing legal authority or organizational demands. Previously, it appeared that if psychologists could not resolve such conflicts, they could adhere to the law or demands of an organization without further consideration. That language has been deleted and this new sentence added: “Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.”

These amendments to the Ethics Code provide clear guidance to psychologists regarding their ethical obligations when conflicts arise between psychology ethics and the law or ethics and organizational demands.

An APA Ethics Committee task force last revised Ethical Standard 1.02 on conflicts between ethics and law in September 2001. The standard, which had been previously revised in 1992, had been criticized by psychology practitioners, particularly those in the forensics community. The 1992 standard said that when ethics and law conflict, psychologists should “make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in responsible manner.” Practitioners were concerned because at times judges, who were unfamiliar with psychology ethics, would order that clients’ raw test data and psychotherapy notes be submitted into legal proceedings. Judges had also made custody, visitation or supervision recommendations without first seeking appropriate evaluations. Psychologists said they were being placed in a conflict between ethics and law.

The task force had responded to such concerns by revising Standard 1.02’s language to say that if a conflict arises between ethics and law, psychologists should make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and seek to resolve the conflict. If that process was not successful, a psychologist had the option of following the “law, regulations or other governing legal authority.”

The language created a process for resolving a conflict between ethics and law but did not require a psychologist to violate a court order and thus risk being jailed or fined. The psychologist could, however, engage in civil disobedience, if he or she chose. The ethics task force approved the revision with minor edits and APA’s Council of Representatives adopted it in 2002.

That solution was called into question after Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush administration used abusive interrogation techniques that it defended under the law. The question arose as to what a psychologist’s ethical obligations would be if they were ordered to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and whether Ethical Standard 1.02 could be used as a defense.

The full story can be read here.