1 / 22

ANZAPPL Seminar The role of the helping professions: Lessons learned from the United States

ANZAPPL Seminar The role of the helping professions: Lessons learned from the United States. Astrid Birgden Deakin University. SO WHAT?. It’s an example of an ethical slippery slope in Ψ …. International Human Rights Law.

marty
Download Presentation

ANZAPPL Seminar The role of the helping professions: Lessons learned from the United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ANZAPPL Seminar The role of the helping professions: Lessons learned from the United States Astrid Birgden Deakin University

  2. SO WHAT? It’s an example of an ethical slippery slope in Ψ…

  3. International Human Rights Law United Nation’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) Article 2- there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever (state of war, threat of war, internal stability) for torture to be justified. Therefore, torture during interrogation is a human rights violation.

  4. Torture/Interrogation Defined United Nations Convention = torture 1. severe physical or mental pain or suffering 2. intentionally inflicted 3. to obtain information/confession or punish or intimidate/coerce 4. at instigation or consent of a public official Ψ = interrogation Extracting a maximum amount of accurate information from a detainee in a minimum amount of time, using legal means (Arrigo & Wagner, 2007)

  5. US Policy 2002: Acts of interrogators that may be “cruel, inhumane or degrading” were not torture. 2005: Interrogation not forbidden if it occurred outside the US with non-US citizens. US domestic policy was outside international human rights law

  6. Unethical Ψ Practice Ψ have been involved in torture (although the APA denied this and has not instigated legal action). UN Special Rapporteur on Mental Health + UN Special Rapporteur on Torture- torture took place at Guantánamo Bay under the supervision of Ψ. Council of Europe- detainees in CIA black sites were subjected to torture and Ψ devised abusive interrogation techniques. International Committee of the Red Cross (2003)- conditions at Guantánamo Bay are tantamount to torture and Ψ maintain these conditions. Authors have provided a documented example of a psychologist’s involvement in “extreme torture” (Olson, Soldz, & Davis, 2008) and expressed concern that military psychologists- & psychiatrists- continued to engage in coercive interrogations (Halpern, Halpern & Doherty, 2008).

  7. Why did this happen? The APA weighed “community protection” against “do no harm” ethical principles i.e., detainee rights were trumped by community protection and so Ψ treated detainees as objects or a means to an ends (i.e., unethical practice).

  8. How did this happen?

  9. 2005 APA PENS ReportAPA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security OK for Ψ to consult or advise (but not assist) in interrogations because: 1. “They have a long-standing tradition of doing in other law enforcement contexts”. 2. “In a unique position to ensure that these processes are safe and ethical for all participants”. ! But remember, interrogation was outside international human rights law!

  10. Who was on the PENS Report Committee? Of the 10 committee members selected by the APA President of the day (Koocher): 6 = close military ties (including one non-APA member) 4 = involved with detainees in Guantánamo Bay/ Abu Ghraib/Afghanistan + additional observers with military/intelligence tieswere present at the meetings

  11. The problem with this? The Committee consisted of members with military experience rather than academics equipped to critically analyze the evidence and/or ethicists to debate the moral issues:- “the question of whether psychologist participation in interrogations was ethical was never seriously discussed by the taskforce”, (Soldz, 2008, p. 600).

  12. Why did the PENS Report weight ‘community protection’ against ‘do no harm’? To continue funding for Ψ research and practice-- a morally corrupt position (Soldz, 2008) and/or Committee members were captured by a sense of retribution at the time, where the efficacy of interrogation became subordinate to revenge, humiliation and punishment (Janoff-Bulman, 2007).

  13. The moral voices...

  14. APA 2005 Resolution Any departure from the APA’s Ethics Code, under direction of authority, would be in accordance with “basic human rights”. Problem: This change was never followed through.

  15. APA 2006 Resolution Affirmed that Ψ should not engage in cruel/inhumane treatment/punishment + report unethical acts. Problems: Did not define ‘cruel/inhumane’. Did not exempt ‘pain & suffering’ from sanction if not causing lasting harm. Only expressed grave concern if human rights violated, rather than prohibition. Remained ambiguous if domestic and international law, or ethics and law, conflicted.

  16. APA 2007 Resolution “Absolute prohibition” of torture/ interrogation. Problems Only prevent hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, dogs etc if caused significant pain and suffering or lasting harm. Conflict between ethics and law unresolved (workplace overrides ethics) Not a total ban

  17. APA 2008 Resolution Ψ prohibited from any techniques considered torture as defined in international law + Ψ do not work in settings where the detainee is outside the protection of international or US law (unless working for detainees or organisations that protect human rights) Problem (still) Conflict with APA Ethics Code still not resolved. 8,792 voted in favor of the resolution; 6,157 (41%) voted against the resolution!!

  18. !ETHICAL WARNINGS! The APA “violating human rights and sidestepping international and national laws and professional ethics will be remembered as wrong in the harsher light of time” (Opotow, 2007, p. 460). A “bright line” position was long overdue (Olson, Soldz, & Davis, 2008).

  19. !ETHICAL WARNING! cont “…unquestioned support for ideological banners of “national security,” or other high-sounding phrases. In other nations, at other times, that same ideology was used to justify torture and suppression of human rights. Ψ seek objective truth behind slogans and euphemisms, and live by empirical evidence to guide their professional functions” (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 73)

  20. Australian Psychological Society Declaration on Torture 2007 The APS, as a member of the International Union of Psychological Science, fully endorses the UN Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1997. The APS regards all forms of torture, as defined in Article 1 of the UN Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1997, as breaches of the Society’s Code of Ethics (2003) General Principle III Propriety.

  21. References • Birgden, A. & Perlin, M (2008). “Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison”: A human rights perspective on therapeutic jurisprudence and the role of forensic psychologists in correctional settings. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 4, 256-263. • YouTube Documentary: www.tinyurl.com/lz8vb5

More Related