This topic hits close to home for me because I am a former member of the American Psychological Association. My bachelors degree is in Psychology, and I studied this discipline to help people. I adopted the ethical model that motivates all medical and social sciences, from doctors and nurses to psychologists and social workers: DO NO HARM. In in debate on torture during the Bush administration, I was shocked to hear of the contribution of a number of psychologists and the overall contribution of the APA.
In short psychologists assisted in the "advanced interrogation techniques" used at Guantanamo Bay and military prisons in Iraq. There is growing evidence that psychologists were not only taking part in procedures that have shocked the senses of humanity around the world, but were in fact in charge of designing those brutal tactics and training interrogators in those techniques. Even worse, while American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers specifically banned involvement in military and CIA interrogation, the APA permitted and supported psychologists involved in torture for the sake of "national security."
To their credit, many in the APA protested and some withdrew their membership altogether. This revolt caused the group to vote on resolutions outlawing their participation in certain techniques such as waterboarding, but left far too many loopholes. In addition, the membership failed to pass a ban from participation in detainee interrogations as other professional organizations have.
If this brings back images of horror films and holocausts involving psychological torture, it should. Psychologist have an ugly history of being on the wrong side of history and today is no exception.
Just makes me glad I ended up as a social worker.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know that you weren't the Asimov fan that I was, but I'm sure that you remember the Laws of Robotics. The 4th law of robotics is "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." Let's make a simple substitution to this law: "a psychologist may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." Many people -- and psychologists after all, are just people -- feel that the "common good" supercedes individual rights and liberties. They use whatever tools are at their disposal to achieve what they perceive to be the best outcome.
ReplyDeleteYou know that I am a pacifist, and do not agree with war and violence. I do not agree with the tortures being commited in our pow holding areas. I believe we should place a much higher value on human life than our opponents in this war. Dean told me that he spoke with many Germans who were POWs in American camps and that not one of them ever spoke of being mistreated. In fact they commented on how well they were treated. Dean said that it made him feel proud that the Germans did not suffer at our hands.
Let us suppose for just one moment that the worse possible horror happened -- someone, a serial killer, kidnapped my grandchildren. I found out that his brother, and possibly a neighbor, helped plan the kidnapping and knew where the children were being held. They wouldn't give the police the information because they believed the man was justified in taking the children. Would I do whatever it took to rescue those babies? Aboslutely. Psychologial warfare against mind and body? Yes. would I be able to justify and rationalize those actions? Yes
All right, we both know that I couldn't do it myself, but if I could provide interrogators with the tools to break them down, I would.
Granted that is an extreme scenario, and a very individualized one, but if those psychologists care as passionately for this country as I do for my grandchildren then I can understand the choices they have made. No mere membership in a man-made "organization" would deter me from pursuing what I believed to be correct in the eyes of God. Passion can blind, and evil passions can destroy a person's humanity.
Once again, I do NOT agree with them, Keith, and hope that the use of these techniques will cease. I too, admire those who refues to participate in such actions.
I recently read a book referred to me by a friend. The book was based on the premise that all governments are evil. The founding fathers knew that, and so they made the powers of our federal government as weak as possible to protect the people.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, it gave working definitions of the following terms:
Liberal -- a person or political party which limits military involvement in the world, but advocates social involvement. Restricts the free enterprise system, and heavily taxes the wealthy.
Socialist -- A person/political party which distrusts those with money and desires to "take from the rich and give to the poor" thus eliminating economic classes and destroying people's drive to succeed. (they believe no wealthy individual earns his money honestly -- only by cheating the downtrodden)
Conservative -- strong military involvement in the world, and encourages individual wealth. Few social programs.
The book states that we as people inheritantly know right from wrong, good from evil and that we should not legislate morality or much of anything else. Schools should not be funded through public moneys -- all schools should be private. No legislations for drugs, alcohol, pronography, or morality issues should be on the books and that police forces should be privately run where necessary. Prisons should be privately owned. No medicare or medicaid, no Aid For Dependant children, unemployment, or SS to name a few. The book states that once these programs have been eliminated, then we as good people will fill int he gap and the needs will be met charitably rather than governmentally.
Any comments?
I don't really agree with the article. The government can do a lot of good as long as it can be checked by the people and remains in the control of the people.
ReplyDelete