Ethics of Fighting Terrorism

Psychologists are valued as experts in human behaviour and as such are in the position to make important contributions to national defence efforts. As these contributions can be construed to be in alignment with the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code, some claim that the abilities of psychologists naturally give rise to a responsibility to help in this domain. Yet current issues regarding involvement of psychologists in National security has revealed ethical challenges unique to the military interrogation setting which must be overcome by the APA before psychologists may help in an ethical fashion.

The APA prohibits psychologists from engaging in, directing, supporting, facilitating, or offering training in torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment at any time, for any reason, with no exceptions. Principal A: Beneficence and nonmaleficence, of the APA Ethics Code clearly states that psychologists must strive to benefit their clients and ‘do no harm’ (APA Ethics Code). Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be attentive to and report any such inhumane acts. There appears, however, to be a bigger issue at stake. The high standards of the APA’s ethical code clearly state that its objective is to promote health, education, and human welfare (APA Ethics Code). It would therefore be unethical for the APA to support psychologists retaining information during an interrogation in an ethical fashion (that is, in compliance with the APA Ethics Code) only to pass it over to a government who will then use it to kill innocent people. While ethical in a narrow sense, this would be unethical in a global sense. I would argue that psychologists and the APA cannot claim to be acting ethically in the obtainment of information to be later used in an unethical way. Clearly, this would not support the APA’s goal of promoting human welfare, if in fact their goal applies to all humans and not just Americans.

In order for the APA to provide guidelines for its psychologists working for the goals of US national defense, the APA would need to be sure that these goals will always be ethical. As the APA is not privileged to US government intelligence nor to the agenda and goals of their administration, there is a real danger that psychologists could attain information that could later be put to unethical use.

In the United States war against terror, there have been many reports of violations of ethical conduct in both academic and non-academic journals. Horrifying graphic photographs comprise merely a fraction of such evidence. US military interrogators are known to have used methods such as sleep deprivation, prolonged solitary confinement, painful bodily positions, feigned suffocation, beatings and psychological coercion, sometimes causing death or serious injury, all in an attempt to pressure detainees to cooperate. These horrendous conditions in which detainees are held violate existing international laws. They are not, however, in violation of US laws. The Bush administration justified such ill treatment with the premise that torture is only torture when it is intended to cause harm. This narrow definition of torture includes only those acts which result in death, organ failure, or permanent impairment, thus excluding psychological torture. While the US holds this narrow view and uses it to justify appalling acts which they feel necessary to meet their goals, the rest of the world does not share this view. The United Nations defines torture as infliction of physical or mental harm which can be premeditated, systematic or meaningless by one person to another for any reason. This broader definition places the US in a difficult spot in justifying their acts to the international community as they detain prisoners against both international laws and the Geneva Convention. With this in mind, it is questionable whether licensed healthcare providers can ethically be used to aid in reaching the imperialistic ends of the US. US interrogation centers put military healthcare professionals at risk of engaging in unethical practices either directly (that they themselves will be involved in unethical acts) or indirectly (that information they receive will be used in an unethical way).

I would argue that the APA has two reasonable courses of action. 1. If the APA would like to be involved in national defence, an emphasis on political, ethical, cultural, military, national defence and interrogation training must be mandatory so that psychologists in this area would be well informed. With a lack of government knowledge, the APA runs the risk of supporting that which is unknown to them. 2. The other option would be for the APA to steer clear of political agendas and remain independent from state, military, and national defence, and instead act with universal responsibility of having psychologists be ethical at all times, in all they do, to all people. This would entail that the APA not support the American government and its goals (via ‘consultation to interrogation’), which are questionable and unknown to the APA.

With national security efforts growing, the demand for interrogation psychologists is increasing. This growing demand corresponds with a greater risk, and thus requires that these issues be given serious consideration; it demands a more intricate approach, where no grounds be left uncovered.

References:
American Psychological Association (2003, June 1). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
American Psychological Association (2005, June). Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from
http://www.apa.org/releases/PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf
Behnke, S. (2006). Psychological ethics and national security: The position of the American Psychological Association. European Psychologist, 11, 153-156.
Holmes, D., & Perron, A. (2007). Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics,33, 143-145.