{"id":69673,"date":"2016-02-15T12:00:36","date_gmt":"2016-02-15T12:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=69673"},"modified":"2016-02-09T16:52:59","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T16:52:59","slug":"preserve-do-no-harm-for-military-psychologists-coalition-responds-to-department-of-defense-letter-to-the-apa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/02\/preserve-do-no-harm-for-military-psychologists-coalition-responds-to-department-of-defense-letter-to-the-apa\/","title":{"rendered":"Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA"},"content":{"rendered":"

8 Feb 2016 – <\/em>Last July, an\u00a0independent investigation<\/a>\u00a0documented a years-long pattern of secret collusion between senior representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to keep psychologists involved in the DoD\u2019s abusive interrogation and detention program. Following these revelations, in August the APA\u2019s Council of Representatives passed an historic\u00a0resolution<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 by a nearly unanimous vote \u2013 to ban psychologists from involvement in national security interrogations. The Council further voted to remove psychologists from any involvement in detention operations at Guant\u00e1namo Bay and all other facilities operating in violation of international law. The APA assigned the responsibility for determining such violations to the UN Committee Against Torture, the United Nations Rapporteurs on Torture and Human Rights, and other authoritative international legal bodies.<\/p>\n

According to a\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0report<\/a>, as a direct result of this new policy, psychologists were removed from detention operations at Guant\u00e1namo at the end of December. In part the report stated:<\/p>\n

Gen. John F. Kelly, the head of the United States Southern Command which oversees Guant\u00e1namo, has ordered that psychologists be withdrawn from a wide range of activities dealing with detainees at the prison because of the new rules of the association.<\/p>\n

However, a subsequent\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to APA officials from Mr. Brad Carson, Acting Principal Deputy for the Under Secretary of the DoD, indicates that the DoD is now seeking to undo the changes required by the policy and undermine the APA\u2019s determination that the work of psychologists in national security settings must be consistent with international human rights law. In part, Mr. Carson\u2019s letter requests confirmation from the APA that restrictions on the role of psychologists at U.S. sites in violation of international law \u201care a matter of policy, not an ethical mandate.\u201d With this distinction, it appears that the DoD aims to continue the engagement of psychologists in national security interrogations and other functions without repercussions \u2013 including risk to their licensure \u2013 in contradiction to the intent of the APA\u2019s new policy.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>\u00a0strongly encourages APA officials to reject the DoD\u2019s request and indeed to urge that the DoD change its policies and directives regarding the use of psychologists \u2013 as well as other health professionals \u2013 in interrogation and detention operations. As the APA stated in its recent\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to President Obama, those policies and directives are fundamentally inconsistent with the ethics of psychologists:<\/p>\n

We are requesting that military and other psychologists be safeguarded from involvement in any national security interrogations or detention settings that would risk placing them in conflict with APA’s Ethics Code and policies related to national security.<\/p>\n

Below we identify several specific concerns with the assertions and interpretations offered in Mr. Carson\u2019s letter. We conclude that DoD directives and policies, not APA ethical standards, must adapt.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Psychologists\u2019 do-no-harm ethical standards are different from guidelines for other military personnel.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The\u00a0ethical imperative<\/a>\u00a0for psychologists is \u201cto benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.\u201d\u00a0In his letter, Mr. Carson argues that the DoD adheres to this same do-no-harm standard, but this claim is faulty because the DoD fails to adequately distinguish between the obligations of health professionals \u2013 regardless of their role or setting \u2013 and the obligations of other military personnel.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Citing Department of Defense Directive\u00a02310.08E<\/a>, Mr. Carson asserts that \u201cLike the APA code, DoD policy on medical program support for detainee operations also takes care to ensure that psychologists employed by the Department \u2018do no harm.\u2019\u201d However, according to the Directive, this obligation to avoid harm is limited to those health professionals specifically engaged in a \u201cprovider-patient treatment relationship.\u201d For other health professionals, including psychologists involved in interrogation and detention operations, the DoD does away with the obligation to avoid harm and instead imposes substantially lower standards: to uphold humane treatment, to refrain from acts of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to follow applicable law.<\/p>\n

    These lower standards fall well short of the ethical obligations unique to the health professions \u2013 obligations that always involve minimizing harm and are never limited solely to refraining from acts of abuse. In this context, it is instructive that the Defense Health Board has urged ethics reform at the DoD, grounded in affirming the duty of all its health professionals to do no harm. Rather than asking the APA to change its ethical standards and expectations for military psychologists, the DoD should instead adopt the Defense Health Board\u2019s\u00a0recommendations<\/a>\u00a0and rescind the provisions of Directive 2310.08E and other policies that dispense with the \u201cdo no harm\u201d requirement for psychologists not involved in clinical care.<\/p>\n

    It is also worrisome that Mr. Carson\u2019s letter fails to adequately distinguish between ethics and legality. There are fundamental differences between conduct that is deemed\u00a0lawful<\/em>\u00a0for psychologists and conduct that meets the profession\u2019s higher\u00a0ethical<\/em>\u00a0standards. Mr. Carson glosses over this key distinction when he aims to reassure by emphasizing that, according to DoD policy, \u201cbehavioral science consultants \u2018shall not support interrogations that are not in accordance with applicable law.\u2019\u201d Applicable law is not a satisfactory substitute for psychological ethics, and to suggest otherwise reflects a failure to grasp how the DoD\u2019s current policies are inconsistent with the APA\u2019s ethical requirements. Mr. Carson\u2019s letter appears to suggest that the APA should simply abandon its ethical commitments in the service of the DoD\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Psychologists played a central role in detainee torture and ill-treatment; and abusive practices continue to the present day.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Mr. Carson\u2019s letter states that the DoD \u201cunderstands the desire of the American psychology profession to make a strong statement regarding reports about the role of former military psychologists more than a dozen years ago.\u201d His labeling of the extensive evidence of detainee torture and abuse at the hands of psychologists as mere \u201creports\u201d understates the fact that these abuses have been well-documented in the\u00a02008 Senate Armed Services Committee Report<\/a>, the\u00a02005 Schmidt-Furlow Report<\/a>, and reports from\u00a0Physicians for Human Rights<\/a>,\u00a0The Constitution Project<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Institute on Medicine as a Profession<\/a>, among other sources.<\/p>\n

      The suggestion that detainee mistreatment only occurred \u201cmore than a dozen years ago\u201d by \u201cformer military psychologists\u201d is also inaccurate. The abuse of detainees continues\u00a0today,<\/em>\u00a0which is why the APA\u2019s new policy addresses the deployment of current military psychologists.\u00a0<\/em>The United Nations\u00a0Committee Against Torture<\/a>\u00a0has determined that the current treatment of detainees at Guant\u00e1namo, including force-feeding and indefinite detention without trial, violates the UN Convention Against Torture. Furthermore, Appendix M of the\u00a0Army Field Manual (FM 2-22.3)\u00a0<\/a>allows the ongoing use of abusive techniques and conditions of confinement that include isolation, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation \u2013 all violations of psychological ethics and APA policy.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The U.S. Government\u2019s duty of care for detainees does not justify psychologists\u2019 participation in human rights violations.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Mr. Carson\u2019s letter argues that \u201cwithdrawing all government psychologists from patient care at Guantanamo would represent an abandonment by the psychology profession of the obligations of the U.S. Government under international and U.S. law.\u201d This fundamentally misinterprets the professional duty of psychologists when confronted with torture, ill-treatment, and other human rights violations. The ethical obligation to avoid harm precludes being part of a detention apparatus, such as is present at Guantanamo, that the United Nations has determined to be in violation of international law. Harms currently authorized or practiced by the military include indefinite detention, force-feeding, and the use of interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation (allowed by Appendix M of Army Field Manual FM 2-22.3). In settings characterized by a lack of transparency and independent oversight, psychologists are particularly constrained from exercising independent professional judgment, avoiding conflicts of interest, and avoiding harm.<\/p>\n

        The APA and other health professional organizations have a duty to support the ethical practice of the profession, which includes protecting their members from complicity in human rights abuses and other violations of international law. The APA\u2019s determinations of what practices cause harm or violate international law are based on the factual record and appropriate authorities on international human rights and humanitarian law,\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0on the opinions of U.S. government entities. This position is consistent with the responsibilities of professional associations to uphold health professionals\u2019\u00a0undivided loyalty<\/a>\u00a0to prisoners, especially when their members practice in situations where such violations may exist.<\/p>\n

        Thus, according to the APA\u2019s ethical guidelines and policy, psychologists employed by the DoD may provide care to detainees\u00a0only if<\/em>\u00a0their treatment and confinement are consistent with international human rights standards. When these conditions are not met, psychologists may still provide care, but only if they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights. In this way, APA\u2019s policy provides a mechanism whereby psychologists may fulfill their duty of care without violating their duty to avoid harm.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The DoD\u2019s concerns about the effect of the new APA policy on military recruitment are unwarranted.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Mr. Carson\u2019s letter promotes the view that \u201cLicensing uncertainty as a result of the policy adopted by the APA\u2026could adversely affect the recruitment and retention of highly qualified psychologists needed by the MHS and United States Armed Forces.\u201d It also suggests that the new APA policy will cause \u201canxiety\u201d over possible professional censure among military psychologists\u00a0en masse<\/em>, and that the welfare of our soldiers, veterans, and their families will suffer as psychologists become uncomfortable pursuing mental health careers within the armed forces.<\/p>\n

          This purported concern lacks substance. Only a minute percentage of military psychologists work at Guantanamo and other detention centers. According to one\u00a0spokesperson<\/a>\u00a0for the DoD\u2019s Southern Command, no more than a dozen psychologists served at Guantanamo in 2015, and a second Command\u00a0spokesperson<\/a>\u00a0has identified these psychologists as \u201cvolunteers.\u201d There is no valid reason to take seriously the DoD\u2019s \u201csky is falling\u201d admonition. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that psychologists concerned about Guantanamo\u2019s ugly history and stigma may actually be\u00a0more\u00a0<\/em>interested in healthcare positions that support the military now that this new APA policy is in place.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. UN Security Council rulings are an inappropriate benchmark for evaluating the human rights status of the Guantanamo detention facility.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The\u00a0UN Committee Against Torture<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0UN Special Rapporteur Juan Mendez<\/a>\u00a0have stated clearly that the Guantanamo detention facility stands in violation of relevant international law regarding the treatment of detainees. These determinations meet the notification requirements specified in the new APA policy for the removal of psychologists from detention operations there. In response, Mr. Carson\u2019s letter asserts that \u201cUnder the United Nations Charter, binding U.N. obligations are established by the U.N. Security Council, and not by a special rapporteur.\u201d However, the APA chose the UN Committee Against Torture and the Rapporteurs in part because other standards, such as the one suggested by Mr. Carson, would be entirely impractical as a guide for the APA\u2019s ethics policy. To obtain a Security Council ruling of the sort the DoD argues should be necessary, official U.S. support would be required. But it should be apparent that the U.S. government would not vote in favor of a UN resolution that declares its own detention facility to be in violation of international law.<\/p>\n

            Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

            In sum, Mr. Carson\u2019s letter fails to adequately recognize that the foundation for the APA\u2019s stance against psychologists\u2019 participation in interrogations and other related security functions are the twin professional obligations of beneficence and non-maleficence: to do good and to minimize harm to individuals. As other organizations of health professionals have also emphasized, for the APA these obligations do not depend on the specific role that psychologists play when using their professional skills. The APA\u00a0Code of Ethics<\/a>\u00a0provides that\u00a0\u201cPsychologists must take reasonable steps to avoid harming their patients or clients, research participants, students,\u00a0and others with whom they work,<\/em>\u00a0and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

            In his letter Mr. Carson states, \u201cWe value the historical relationship between the Armed Forces and the American psychology community. We see the timeless ethical values of the psychology profession to \u2018do no harm\u2019 and to do public service as mutually reinforcing.\u201d To a significant degree, we share this stance. For the relationship to be truly constructive and productive, however, in its employment of psychologists the DoD must fully respect and abide by our profession\u2019s ethical principles and standards. For psychologists, these guideposts are indispensable in framing, supporting, and constraining the avenues through which we can effectively contribute our skills and expertise to public service.<\/p>\n

            Roy Eidelson
            \nTrudy Bond
            \nStephen Soldz
            \nSteven Reisner
            \nJean Maria Arrigo
            \nBrad Olson
            \nBryant Welch<\/p>\n

            Note:\u00a0A PDF version is available on the Coalition website at\u00a0http:\/\/www.ethicalpsychology.org\/materials\/Coalition-Responds-to-DoD-Letter-to-APA.pdf<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

            NOTE:<\/strong><\/p>\n

            [1]<\/a>\u00a0We are aware that not all psychologists are health professionals. However, military psychologists serving as Behavioral Science Consultants for detention and interrogation operations are required to be \u201chealth care personnel\u201d and to hold state licenses. Furthermore, the APA has affirmed that its ethics code, including the injunction to \u201cdo no harm,\u201d applies to\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0psychologists, not only those engaged in the provision of health services.<\/p>\n

            ______________________________________<\/p>\n

            Roy Eidelson is a member of the TRANSCEND Network<\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting<\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>, associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>. Roy can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            The Department of Defense is now seeking to undo the changes required by the policy and undermine the American Psychological Association\u2019s determination that the work of psychologists in national security settings must be consistent with international human rights law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}