Jason D Reynolds and Taewon Choi
American Psychologist 2017 Jul-Aug;72(5):446-458
Abstract
Despite psychobiography's long-standing history in the field of psychology, there has been relatively little discussion of ethical issues and guidelines in psychobiographical research. The Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association (APA) does not address psychobiography. The present article highlights the value of psychobiography to psychology, reviews the history and current status of psychobiography in the field, examines the relevance of existing APA General Principles and Ethical Standards to psychobiographical research, and introduces a best practice ethical decision-making model to assist psychologists working in psychobiography. Given the potential impact of psychologists' evaluative judgments on other professionals and the lay public, it is emphasized that psychologists and other mental health professionals have a high standard of ethical vigilance in conducting and reporting psychobiography.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Psychologists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychologists. Show all posts
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Friday, July 21, 2017
Enabling torture: APA, clinical psychology training and the failure to disobey.
Alice LoCicero, Robert P. Marlin, David Jull-Patterson, Nancy M. Sweeney, Brandon Lee Gray, & J. Wesley Boyd
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 22(4), Nov 2016, 345-355.
Abstract
The American Psychological Association (APA) has historically had close ties with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Recent revelations describe problematic outcomes of those ties, as some in the APA colluded with the DOD to allow psychologists to participate, with expectation of impunity, in harsh interrogations that amounted to torture of Guantanamo detainees, during the Bush era. We now know that leaders in the APA purposely misled psychologists about the establishment of policies on psychologists’ roles in interrogations. Still, the authors wondered why, when the resulting policies reflected a clear contradiction of the fundamental duty to do no harm, few psychologists, in or out of the military, protested the policies articulated in 2005 by the committee on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). Previous research suggested that U.S. graduate students in clinical psychology receive little or no training in the duties of psychologists in military settings or in the ethical guidance offered by international treaties. Thus psychologists might not have been well prepared to critique the PENS policies or to refuse to participate in interrogations. To further explore this issue, the authors surveyed Directors of Clinical Training of doctoral programs in clinical psychology, asking how extensively their programs address dilemmas psychologists may face in military settings. The results indicate that most graduate programs offer little attention to dilemmas of unethical orders, violations of international conventions, or excessively harsh interrogations. These findings, combined with earlier studies, suggest that military psychologists may have been unprepared to address ethical dilemmas, whereas psychologists outside the military may have been unprepared to critique the APA’s collusion with the DOD. The authors suggest ways to address this apparent gap in ethics education for psychology graduate students, interns, and fellows.
The article is here.
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 22(4), Nov 2016, 345-355.
Abstract
The American Psychological Association (APA) has historically had close ties with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Recent revelations describe problematic outcomes of those ties, as some in the APA colluded with the DOD to allow psychologists to participate, with expectation of impunity, in harsh interrogations that amounted to torture of Guantanamo detainees, during the Bush era. We now know that leaders in the APA purposely misled psychologists about the establishment of policies on psychologists’ roles in interrogations. Still, the authors wondered why, when the resulting policies reflected a clear contradiction of the fundamental duty to do no harm, few psychologists, in or out of the military, protested the policies articulated in 2005 by the committee on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). Previous research suggested that U.S. graduate students in clinical psychology receive little or no training in the duties of psychologists in military settings or in the ethical guidance offered by international treaties. Thus psychologists might not have been well prepared to critique the PENS policies or to refuse to participate in interrogations. To further explore this issue, the authors surveyed Directors of Clinical Training of doctoral programs in clinical psychology, asking how extensively their programs address dilemmas psychologists may face in military settings. The results indicate that most graduate programs offer little attention to dilemmas of unethical orders, violations of international conventions, or excessively harsh interrogations. These findings, combined with earlier studies, suggest that military psychologists may have been unprepared to address ethical dilemmas, whereas psychologists outside the military may have been unprepared to critique the APA’s collusion with the DOD. The authors suggest ways to address this apparent gap in ethics education for psychology graduate students, interns, and fellows.
The article is here.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
The Torturers Speak
The Editorial Board
The New York Times
Originally posted June 23, 2017
It’s hard to watch the videotaped depositions of the two former military psychologists who, working as independent contractors, designed, oversaw and helped carry out the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees held at C.I.A. black sites in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The men, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, strike a professional pose. Dressed in suits and ties, speaking matter-of-factly, they describe the barbaric acts they and others inflicted on the captives, who were swept up indiscriminately and then waterboarded, slammed into walls, locked in coffins and more — all in the hunt for intelligence that few, if any, of them possessed.
One died of apparent hypothermia.
Many others were ultimately released without charge.
When pushed to confront the horror and uselessness of what they had done, the psychologists fell back on one of the oldest justifications of wartime. “We were soldiers doing what we were instructed to do,” Dr. Jessen said.
Perhaps, but they were also soldiers whose contracting business was paid more than $81 million.
The information is here.
The New York Times
Originally posted June 23, 2017
It’s hard to watch the videotaped depositions of the two former military psychologists who, working as independent contractors, designed, oversaw and helped carry out the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees held at C.I.A. black sites in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The men, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, strike a professional pose. Dressed in suits and ties, speaking matter-of-factly, they describe the barbaric acts they and others inflicted on the captives, who were swept up indiscriminately and then waterboarded, slammed into walls, locked in coffins and more — all in the hunt for intelligence that few, if any, of them possessed.
One died of apparent hypothermia.
Many others were ultimately released without charge.
When pushed to confront the horror and uselessness of what they had done, the psychologists fell back on one of the oldest justifications of wartime. “We were soldiers doing what we were instructed to do,” Dr. Jessen said.
Perhaps, but they were also soldiers whose contracting business was paid more than $81 million.
The information is here.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Psychologist contractors say they were following agency orders
Pamela MacLean
Bloomberg News
Originally posted May 5, 2017
A pair of U.S. psychologists accused of overseeing the torture of terrorism detainees more than a decade ago face reluctance from a federal judge to let them question the CIA’s deputy director to show they were only following orders.
The judge indicated at a hearing Friday that the psychologists should be able defend themselves in the 2015 lawsuit without compromising government secrecy around the exact role Gina Haspel played in the agency’s overseas interrogation program years before she was tapped to be second in command by the Trump administration.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case on behalf of three ex-prisoners, one of whom died in custody, is urging the judge not to let the psychologists’ lawyers question Haspel and a retired Central Intelligence Agency official. While the defendants want to demonstrate their actions were approved by the agency, the ACLU says that won’t shield them from liability.
The article is here.
Bloomberg News
Originally posted May 5, 2017
A pair of U.S. psychologists accused of overseeing the torture of terrorism detainees more than a decade ago face reluctance from a federal judge to let them question the CIA’s deputy director to show they were only following orders.
The judge indicated at a hearing Friday that the psychologists should be able defend themselves in the 2015 lawsuit without compromising government secrecy around the exact role Gina Haspel played in the agency’s overseas interrogation program years before she was tapped to be second in command by the Trump administration.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case on behalf of three ex-prisoners, one of whom died in custody, is urging the judge not to let the psychologists’ lawyers question Haspel and a retired Central Intelligence Agency official. While the defendants want to demonstrate their actions were approved by the agency, the ACLU says that won’t shield them from liability.
The article is here.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Dysfunction Disorder
Joaquin Sapien
Pro Publica
Originally published on January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The mental health professionals in both cases had been recruited by Montego Medical Consulting, a for-profit company under contract with New York City's child welfare agency. For more than a decade, Montego was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the city to produce thousands of evaluations in Family Court cases -- of mothers and fathers, spouses and children. Those evaluations were then shared with judges making decisions of enormous sensitivity and consequence: whether a child could stay at home or if they'd be safer in foster care; whether a parent should be enrolled in a counseling program or put on medication; whether parents should lose custody of their children altogether.
In 2012, a confidential review done at the behest of frustrated lawyers and delivered to the administrative judge of Family Court in New York City concluded that the work of the psychologists lined up by Montego was inadequate in nearly every way. The analysis matched roughly 25 Montego evaluations against 20 criteria from the American Psychological Association and other professional guidelines. None of the Montego reports met all 20 criteria. Some met as few as five. The psychologists used by Montego often didn't actually observe parents interacting with children. They used outdated or inappropriate tools for psychological assessments, including one known as a "projective drawing" exercise.
(cut)
Attorneys and psychologists who have worked in Family Court say judges lean heavily on assessments made by psychologists, often referred to as "forensic evaluators." So do judges themselves.
"In many instances, judges rely on forensic evaluators more than perhaps they should," said Jody Adams, who served as a Family Court judge in New York City for nearly 20 years before leaving the bench in 2012. "They should have more confidence in their own insight and judgment. A forensic evaluator's evidence should be a piece of the judge's decision, but not determinative. These are unbelievably difficult decisions; these are not black and white; they are filled with gray areas and they have lifelong consequences for children and their families. So it's human nature to want to look for help where you can get it."
The article is here.
Pro Publica
Originally published on January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The mental health professionals in both cases had been recruited by Montego Medical Consulting, a for-profit company under contract with New York City's child welfare agency. For more than a decade, Montego was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the city to produce thousands of evaluations in Family Court cases -- of mothers and fathers, spouses and children. Those evaluations were then shared with judges making decisions of enormous sensitivity and consequence: whether a child could stay at home or if they'd be safer in foster care; whether a parent should be enrolled in a counseling program or put on medication; whether parents should lose custody of their children altogether.
In 2012, a confidential review done at the behest of frustrated lawyers and delivered to the administrative judge of Family Court in New York City concluded that the work of the psychologists lined up by Montego was inadequate in nearly every way. The analysis matched roughly 25 Montego evaluations against 20 criteria from the American Psychological Association and other professional guidelines. None of the Montego reports met all 20 criteria. Some met as few as five. The psychologists used by Montego often didn't actually observe parents interacting with children. They used outdated or inappropriate tools for psychological assessments, including one known as a "projective drawing" exercise.
(cut)
Attorneys and psychologists who have worked in Family Court say judges lean heavily on assessments made by psychologists, often referred to as "forensic evaluators." So do judges themselves.
"In many instances, judges rely on forensic evaluators more than perhaps they should," said Jody Adams, who served as a Family Court judge in New York City for nearly 20 years before leaving the bench in 2012. "They should have more confidence in their own insight and judgment. A forensic evaluator's evidence should be a piece of the judge's decision, but not determinative. These are unbelievably difficult decisions; these are not black and white; they are filled with gray areas and they have lifelong consequences for children and their families. So it's human nature to want to look for help where you can get it."
The article is here.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Risk Management and You: 9 Most Frequent Violations for Psychologists
Ken Pope and Melba Vasquez
Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: Practical Guide (5th edition)
(2016)
For U.S. and Canadian psychologists, the 9 most frequent causes among the 5,582 disciplinary actions over the years were (in descending order of frequency):
Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: Practical Guide (5th edition)
(2016)
For U.S. and Canadian psychologists, the 9 most frequent causes among the 5,582 disciplinary actions over the years were (in descending order of frequency):
- unprofessional conduct,
- sexual misconduct,
- negligence,
- nonsexual dual relationships,
- conviction of a crime,
- failure to maintain adequate or accurate records,
- failure to comply with continuing education or competency requirements,
- inadequate or improper supervision or delegation, and
- substandard or inadequate care.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
How U.S. Torture Left a Legacy of Damaged Minds
by Matt Apuzzo, Sheri Fink, and James Risen
The New York Times
Originally published October 10, 2016
Before the United States permitted a terrifying way of interrogating prisoners, government lawyers and intelligence officials assured themselves of one crucial outcome. They knew that the methods inflicted on terrorism suspects would be painful, shocking and far beyond what the country had ever accepted. But none of it, they concluded, would cause long lasting psychological harm.
Fifteen years later, it is clear they were wrong.
Today in Slovakia, Hussein al-Marfadi describes permanent headaches and disturbed sleep, plagued by memories of dogs inside a blackened jail. In Kazakhstan, Lutfi bin Ali is haunted by nightmares of suffocating at the bottom of a well. In Libya, the radio from a passing car spurs rage in Majid Mokhtar Sasy al-Maghrebi, reminding him of the C.I.A. prison where earsplitting music was just one assault to his senses.
And then there is the despair of men who say they are no longer themselves. "I am living this kind of depression," said Younous Chekkouri, a Moroccan, who fears going outside because he sees faces in crowds as Guantanamo Bay guards. "I'm not normal anymore."
The article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published October 10, 2016
Before the United States permitted a terrifying way of interrogating prisoners, government lawyers and intelligence officials assured themselves of one crucial outcome. They knew that the methods inflicted on terrorism suspects would be painful, shocking and far beyond what the country had ever accepted. But none of it, they concluded, would cause long lasting psychological harm.
Fifteen years later, it is clear they were wrong.
Today in Slovakia, Hussein al-Marfadi describes permanent headaches and disturbed sleep, plagued by memories of dogs inside a blackened jail. In Kazakhstan, Lutfi bin Ali is haunted by nightmares of suffocating at the bottom of a well. In Libya, the radio from a passing car spurs rage in Majid Mokhtar Sasy al-Maghrebi, reminding him of the C.I.A. prison where earsplitting music was just one assault to his senses.
And then there is the despair of men who say they are no longer themselves. "I am living this kind of depression," said Younous Chekkouri, a Moroccan, who fears going outside because he sees faces in crowds as Guantanamo Bay guards. "I'm not normal anymore."
The article is here.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Will These 2 Court Cases Finally Hold Our Torturers Accountable?
By David Cole
The Nation
Originally posted May 9, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, by contrast, are not committed to the political branches’ discretion. As the district court in Washington recognized, the very fact that Congress has made torture a crime and, under the Torture Victim Protection Act, grounds for a civil action for damages, refutes the notion that it is an inappropriate subject for courts. The fact that at the margins it may be difficult to decide whether particular actions constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not make them “political questions.” Courts every day must decide whether particular conduct meets statutory definitions; that is what they do.
The district court in the CACI case ruled that because the military supervised the contractors at Abu Ghraib, the case must be dismissed as political because it would necessitate judicial intrusion on sensitive military judgments. But in doing so, it relied on cases that alleged only negligent action by contractors engaged in otherwise lawful and authorized military operations.
The article is here.
The Nation
Originally posted May 9, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, by contrast, are not committed to the political branches’ discretion. As the district court in Washington recognized, the very fact that Congress has made torture a crime and, under the Torture Victim Protection Act, grounds for a civil action for damages, refutes the notion that it is an inappropriate subject for courts. The fact that at the margins it may be difficult to decide whether particular actions constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not make them “political questions.” Courts every day must decide whether particular conduct meets statutory definitions; that is what they do.
The district court in the CACI case ruled that because the military supervised the contractors at Abu Ghraib, the case must be dismissed as political because it would necessitate judicial intrusion on sensitive military judgments. But in doing so, it relied on cases that alleged only negligent action by contractors engaged in otherwise lawful and authorized military operations.
The article is here.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Judge Grants Torture Victims Their First Chance to Pursue Justice
Jenna McLaughlin
The Intercept
Originally published April 22, 2016
A civil suit against the architects of the CIA’s torture program, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, will be allowed to proceed, a federal judge in Spokane, Washington, decided on Friday.
District Judge Justin Quackenbush denied the pair’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit launched against them on behalf of three victims, one dead, of the brutal tactics they designed.
“This is amazing, this is unprecedented,” Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, told The Intercept after the hearing. “This is the first step towards accountability.”
The article is here.
The Intercept
Originally published April 22, 2016
A civil suit against the architects of the CIA’s torture program, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, will be allowed to proceed, a federal judge in Spokane, Washington, decided on Friday.
District Judge Justin Quackenbush denied the pair’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit launched against them on behalf of three victims, one dead, of the brutal tactics they designed.
“This is amazing, this is unprecedented,” Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, told The Intercept after the hearing. “This is the first step towards accountability.”
The article is here.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Advancing Medical Professionalism in US Military Detainee Treatment
Leonard S. Rubenstein, Scott A. Allen, Phyllis A. Guze
PLOS One
Published: January 5, 2016
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001930
Summary Points
PLOS One
Published: January 5, 2016
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001930
Summary Points
- The United States Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) promulgated policies and requirements that required health professionals to participate in the mistreatment of counter-terrorism detainees through participation in such practices as abusive interrogation and force-feeding of detainees, in violation of ethical standards established by associations representing the health professions.
- A report of the Defense Health Board to the Secretary of Defense on military medical ethics released in 2015 found that the Department of Defense “does not have an enterprise-wide, formal, integrated infrastructure to systematically build, support, sustain, and promote an evolving ethical culture within the military health care environment.”
- The Board also found that ethical codes promulgated by the health professions, including the duty to avoid harm, provide a sound basis for military medical practice, even taking into account the unique challenges often faced by military health professionals in reconciling the military mission with patient needs.
- The health professional community should urge the Secretary of Defense to adopt and implement the recommendations of the Defense Health Board, rescind directives authorizing participation of health professionals in interrogation and force-feeding because they are inconsistent with professional ethics, and provide ongoing advice and support for the reform process.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychlogical Association
David H. Hoffman, Esq.
Danielle J. Carter, Esq.
Cara R. Viglucci Lopez, Esq.
Heather L. Benzmiller, Esq.
Ava X. Guo, Esq.
S. Yasir Latifi, Esq.
Daniel C. Craig, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
July 2, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
In November 2014, the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association engaged our Firm to conduct an independent review of allegations that had been made regarding APA’s issuance of ethical guidelines in 2002 and 2005, and related actions. These ethical guidelines determined whether and under what circumstances psychologists who were APA members could ethically participate in national security interrogations.
The gist of the allegations was that APA made these ethics policy decisions as a substantial result of influence from and close relationships with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other government entities, which purportedly wanted permissive ethical guidelines so that their psychologists could continue to participate in harsh and abusive interrogation techniques being used by these agencies after the September 11 attacks on the United States. Critics pointed to alleged procedural irregularities and suspicious outcomes regarding APA’s ethics policy decisions and said they resulted from this improper coordination, collaboration, or collusion. Some said APA’s decisions were intentionally made to assist the government in engaging in these “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Some said they were intentionally made to help the government commit torture.
The entire report is here.
Danielle J. Carter, Esq.
Cara R. Viglucci Lopez, Esq.
Heather L. Benzmiller, Esq.
Ava X. Guo, Esq.
S. Yasir Latifi, Esq.
Daniel C. Craig, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
July 2, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
In November 2014, the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association engaged our Firm to conduct an independent review of allegations that had been made regarding APA’s issuance of ethical guidelines in 2002 and 2005, and related actions. These ethical guidelines determined whether and under what circumstances psychologists who were APA members could ethically participate in national security interrogations.
The gist of the allegations was that APA made these ethics policy decisions as a substantial result of influence from and close relationships with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other government entities, which purportedly wanted permissive ethical guidelines so that their psychologists could continue to participate in harsh and abusive interrogation techniques being used by these agencies after the September 11 attacks on the United States. Critics pointed to alleged procedural irregularities and suspicious outcomes regarding APA’s ethics policy decisions and said they resulted from this improper coordination, collaboration, or collusion. Some said APA’s decisions were intentionally made to assist the government in engaging in these “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Some said they were intentionally made to help the government commit torture.
The entire report is here.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
APA Applauds Release of Senate Intelligence Committee Report Summary
American Psychological Association
Press Release
December 9, 2014
Says transparency will help protect human rights in the future
WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association welcomed the release today of the Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program during the George W. Bush administration. The document’s release recognizes American citizens’ right to know about the prior action of their government and is the best way to ensure that, going forward, the United States engages in national security programs that safeguard human rights and comply with international law.
The new details provided by the report regarding the extent and barbarity of torture techniques used by the CIA are sickening and morally reprehensible.
Two psychologists mentioned prominently in the report under pseudonyms, but identified in media reports as James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, are not members of the American Psychological Association. Jessen was never a member; Mitchell resigned in 2006. Therefore, they are outside the reach of the association’s ethics adjudication process. Regardless of their membership status with APA, if the descriptions of their actions are accurate, they should be held fully accountable for violations of human rights and U.S. and international law.
Last month, the APA announced an independent review of the allegation by New York Times reporter and author James Risen that the association colluded with the Bush administration to support enhanced interrogation techniques that constituted torture. The review is being conducted by attorney David Hoffman of the law office Sidley Austin. Hoffman will be reviewing the released Senate Intelligence Committee report as a part of his APA review. Anyone with relevant information they wish to share with Hoffman is encouraged to communicate with him directly by email or phone at (312) 456-8468.
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes nearly 130,000 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 the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.
Press Release
December 9, 2014
Says transparency will help protect human rights in the future
WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association welcomed the release today of the Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program during the George W. Bush administration. The document’s release recognizes American citizens’ right to know about the prior action of their government and is the best way to ensure that, going forward, the United States engages in national security programs that safeguard human rights and comply with international law.
The new details provided by the report regarding the extent and barbarity of torture techniques used by the CIA are sickening and morally reprehensible.
Two psychologists mentioned prominently in the report under pseudonyms, but identified in media reports as James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, are not members of the American Psychological Association. Jessen was never a member; Mitchell resigned in 2006. Therefore, they are outside the reach of the association’s ethics adjudication process. Regardless of their membership status with APA, if the descriptions of their actions are accurate, they should be held fully accountable for violations of human rights and U.S. and international law.
Last month, the APA announced an independent review of the allegation by New York Times reporter and author James Risen that the association colluded with the Bush administration to support enhanced interrogation techniques that constituted torture. The review is being conducted by attorney David Hoffman of the law office Sidley Austin. Hoffman will be reviewing the released Senate Intelligence Committee report as a part of his APA review. Anyone with relevant information they wish to share with Hoffman is encouraged to communicate with him directly by email or phone at (312) 456-8468.
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes nearly 130,000 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 the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Psychologists to Review Role in Detainee Interrogations
By James Risen
The New York Times
November 13, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
For years, questions about the role of American psychologists and behavioral scientists in the development and implementation of the Bush-era interrogation program have been raised by human rights advocates as well as by critics within the psychological profession itself. Psychologists were involved in developing the enhanced interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects by the Central Intelligence Agency. Later, a number of psychologists, in the military and in the intelligence community, were involved in carrying out and monitoring interrogations.
The entire article is here.
The New York Times
November 13, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
For years, questions about the role of American psychologists and behavioral scientists in the development and implementation of the Bush-era interrogation program have been raised by human rights advocates as well as by critics within the psychological profession itself. Psychologists were involved in developing the enhanced interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects by the Central Intelligence Agency. Later, a number of psychologists, in the military and in the intelligence community, were involved in carrying out and monitoring interrogations.
The entire article is here.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Episode 10: Social Media for Psychologists
In this episode, John talks with Dr. David Palmiter about the basics of social media. They discuss why it is important for psychologists to understand social media as their patients are likely using various forms of social media. Psychologists also need to know what social media is before they participate. They discuss their use of social media as part of professional development. Psychologists need to know at least the basics about social media to practice psychotherapy effectively.
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Explain the concept of social media.
2. List two reasons every psychologist should be on Twitter.
3. Define the concept of branding.
Please read David Palmiter's article: To Tweet or Not to Tweet for an understanding of Twitter.
Find this podcast on iTunes
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved credit for this podcast
Listen directly here.
David Palmiter, PhD sites and contact information
Helping Parents.net
Hectic Parents Blog
Follow Dave on Twitter @HelpingParents
Resources
Palmiter, David. (2012). Positive Ethics Applied to Public Education Through Traditional Media and the Internet. In the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology, Volume 2: Practice, Teaching and Research. Edited by Knapp, Gottlieb, Handelsman, and VandeCreek. Washington DC: The American Psychological Association.
10 Ways That Blogging Transformed My Private Practice
Julie Hanks
1 in 4 Americans now consults Google before booking an appointment with a doctor
Mark Sullivan
Social media: how does it really affect our mental health and well-being?
Medical News Today
Robi Ludwig: Fox News ‘homosexual impulses’ guest: My words were ‘twisted’
At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Explain the concept of social media.
2. List two reasons every psychologist should be on Twitter.
3. Define the concept of branding.
Please read David Palmiter's article: To Tweet or Not to Tweet for an understanding of Twitter.
Find this podcast on iTunes
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved credit for this podcast
Listen directly here.
David Palmiter, PhD sites and contact information
Helping Parents.net
Hectic Parents Blog
Follow Dave on Twitter @HelpingParents
Resources
Palmiter, David. (2012). Positive Ethics Applied to Public Education Through Traditional Media and the Internet. In the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology, Volume 2: Practice, Teaching and Research. Edited by Knapp, Gottlieb, Handelsman, and VandeCreek. Washington DC: The American Psychological Association.
10 Ways That Blogging Transformed My Private Practice
Julie Hanks
1 in 4 Americans now consults Google before booking an appointment with a doctor
Mark Sullivan
Social media: how does it really affect our mental health and well-being?
Medical News Today
Robi Ludwig: Fox News ‘homosexual impulses’ guest: My words were ‘twisted’
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Large HMO Cited in Mental Health Care Cover-up
Nancy A. Melville
Medscape Medical News
Apr 03, 2013
California's Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) has cited Kaiser Permanente for using a deceptive dual record-keeping system to cover up violations of the state's "timely access" law, which restricts the amount of time mental health patients should have to wait for an appointment, as well as for other violations.
In a report filed last month, the DMHC concludes that many Kaiser mental health patients faced extensive waiting periods for appointments, well beyond the 10 days for a regular appointment that the law requires.
(cut)
Clinician Whistle-blowers
The violations were discovered through a standard survey or evaluation process that the DMHC uses to review compliance by all California health plans.
After the review was underway, complaints regarding timely access violations were brought forward by a group of Kaiser Permanente's own mental health clinicians, who were represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Those complaints were considered and incorporated in the evaluation, Rouillard said.
Among the psychologists lodging complaints was Andris Skuja, PhD, who said the violations had been observed for years before the clinicians referred their concerns to the DMHC.
"Over a number of years, we tried many internal mechanisms with Kaiser to address some mounting concerns we had about the adequacy of treatment," Dr. Skuja told Medscape Medical News.
The entire story is here.
A previous news story about this topic can be found here.
Medscape Medical News
Apr 03, 2013
California's Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) has cited Kaiser Permanente for using a deceptive dual record-keeping system to cover up violations of the state's "timely access" law, which restricts the amount of time mental health patients should have to wait for an appointment, as well as for other violations.
In a report filed last month, the DMHC concludes that many Kaiser mental health patients faced extensive waiting periods for appointments, well beyond the 10 days for a regular appointment that the law requires.
(cut)
Clinician Whistle-blowers
The violations were discovered through a standard survey or evaluation process that the DMHC uses to review compliance by all California health plans.
After the review was underway, complaints regarding timely access violations were brought forward by a group of Kaiser Permanente's own mental health clinicians, who were represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Those complaints were considered and incorporated in the evaluation, Rouillard said.
Among the psychologists lodging complaints was Andris Skuja, PhD, who said the violations had been observed for years before the clinicians referred their concerns to the DMHC.
"Over a number of years, we tried many internal mechanisms with Kaiser to address some mounting concerns we had about the adequacy of treatment," Dr. Skuja told Medscape Medical News.
The entire story is here.
A previous news story about this topic can be found here.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Harford child psychologist pleads guilty to abusing 3 girls
By Mary Gail Hare
The Baltimore Sun
August 22, 2011
A Harford County child psychologist pleaded guilty Monday to child abuse and sexual assault of three young girls he had been treating at his Fallston office.
David Wayne Schrumpf, 55, of Whiteford will serve six years in prison, where he will undergo sex offender treatment, under terms of a plea agreement filed in Harford County Circuit Court. He is charged with one count of child sex abuse and two counts of second-degree assault.
Schrumpf will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He must also surrender his license to practice psychology and cannot seek another in any jurisdiction, according to the plea agreement.
The charges arose after one 7-year-old girl reported to her mother that Schrumpf had touched her inappropriately during a session at his office. Two other victims, who were 9 and 10 years old at the time of the abuse, came forward during the investigation, county State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly said. All the incidents occurred at Schrumpf's office in Fallston over a year beginning in October 2009, Cassilly said.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 31 in Harford County Circuit Court before Judge Maurice Baldwin.
* * * * * * * * *
Local Psychologist Arrested on Child Sex Charges
By Collin Hoofnagle, News Editor
The Patriot, John Carroll's Online Student Newspaper
December 9, 2010
According to “The Aegis,” David W. Schrumpf is a licensed psychologist with a practice in Fallston. He was charged Friday, Dec. 3, with 10 counts of third-degree sex offense and 10 counts of sex abuse of a minor.
According to the Aegis, a local woman was discussing appropriate touching with her seven-year-old daughter when the daughter mentioned her psychologist. The mother then talked to her 10 year-old daughter, who is also a patient of Strumpf’s, when the daughter said that Strumpf touches her in private places during sessions.
In the email, Barker said, “While John Carroll has no formal connection with Dr. Schrumpf, we are aware that over the years some of our students have used Dr. Schrumpf’s services for ADHD diagnostic testing or for counseling.”
The Baltimore Sun
August 22, 2011
A Harford County child psychologist pleaded guilty Monday to child abuse and sexual assault of three young girls he had been treating at his Fallston office.David Wayne Schrumpf, 55, of Whiteford will serve six years in prison, where he will undergo sex offender treatment, under terms of a plea agreement filed in Harford County Circuit Court. He is charged with one count of child sex abuse and two counts of second-degree assault.
Schrumpf will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He must also surrender his license to practice psychology and cannot seek another in any jurisdiction, according to the plea agreement.
The charges arose after one 7-year-old girl reported to her mother that Schrumpf had touched her inappropriately during a session at his office. Two other victims, who were 9 and 10 years old at the time of the abuse, came forward during the investigation, county State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly said. All the incidents occurred at Schrumpf's office in Fallston over a year beginning in October 2009, Cassilly said.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 31 in Harford County Circuit Court before Judge Maurice Baldwin.
* * * * * * * * *
Local Psychologist Arrested on Child Sex Charges
By Collin Hoofnagle, News Editor
The Patriot, John Carroll's Online Student Newspaper
December 9, 2010
In a Dec. 8 email to parents, Principal Paul Barker said that an area psychologist used by students was recently arrested on child sex charges.
According to the Aegis, a local woman was discussing appropriate touching with her seven-year-old daughter when the daughter mentioned her psychologist. The mother then talked to her 10 year-old daughter, who is also a patient of Strumpf’s, when the daughter said that Strumpf touches her in private places during sessions.
In the email, Barker said, “While John Carroll has no formal connection with Dr. Schrumpf, we are aware that over the years some of our students have used Dr. Schrumpf’s services for ADHD diagnostic testing or for counseling.”
Friday, August 12, 2011
Vets face shortage of therapists
New program training clinicians in psychology of combat is an attempt to help fill the gap
By Peter Cameron, Special to the Tribune
When Daniel Brautigam tried to tell therapists how he felt having urine thrown in his face at Guantanamo Bay, he experienced the same frustration as thousands of other returning veterans who have sought counseling."They had no idea how to respond to that. It looked like to me that they were grossed out, and they're supposed to be helping me," said Brautigam, 31, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression following his return to Hoffman Estates from tours with the Navy in the Northern Arabian Gulf and Cuba.
The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 11 percent to 20 percent of veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are suffering from PTSD. Others think the number is higher.
When vets seek therapy, they want a professional who can relate to soldiers in combat, and that usually means a therapist who has military experience. Without such empathy, therapy often is doomed, vets say.
Because most psychologists and mental health care professionals don't have a military background, there's a void in the safety net for vets. Some veterans' organizations have stepped up, training members to help their peers, and the Soldiers Project provides free counseling from licensed professionals and veterans by phone to newly returned vets.
A counselor to ex-soldiers for 35 years, Ray Parrish, 58, a self-described angry veteran, sees the problem on a daily basis. He is the benefits director for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Chicago and helps those trying to navigate the bureaucracy of the Veterans Administration.
"There quite literally are not enough people that have knowledge of veterans' experiences and who have the professional expertise to provide them the health that they need," Parrish said. "That means that all of the veterans get inadequate care."
A new attempt to fill the gap is coming from the Adler School of Professional Psychology in Chicago, which this fall is launching a military specialization track for its doctorate of clinical psychology program. Joe Troiani, a faculty member and Navy veteran who created the track, said the school hopes to prepare students for the specific psychological problems that stem from military service. They will take such classes as the psychology of terrorism, and psychology of combat and conflict.
But some vets scoff at the idea of learning about the horrors of war in the classroom.
"You're dealing with a whole different mindset with a soldier," said Tim Miller, 30, of Chicago, a veteran of the Iraq war who is now studying to be a clinical psychologist at Argosy University. "You can't just wrap your head around that from reading a book."
Troiani called that criticism fair but said the school is training students how to treat the psychological effects of combat, rather than trying to re-create the experience of living in a war zone.
Read the story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)