Report Details Psychology Association’s Role In Interrogation

Abstract

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Professional NewsFull AccessReport Details Psychology Association’s Role In InterrogationAaron LevinAaron LevinSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Aug 2015https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2015.8b3AbstractAn exhaustive report details the ethical convolutions at the American Psychological Association that failed to deter psychologists’ involvement in interrogation.The American Psychological Association “colluded” with officials from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to ensure that psychologists could participate without violating the organization’s ethics rules in the interrogation of people held as part of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” according to an independent report prepared at the association’s request.The 565-page report, compiled by David Hoffman and colleagues from the law firm of Sidley Austin in Chicago, was released July 2, although much of its contents had appeared in an article in the April 30 New York Times by James Risen.The report was commissioned by the psychology association’s board in 2014, said Nadine Kaslow, Ph.D., a professor of psychiatry at Emory University, who served as the organization’s president that year. The organization had stated its opposition to torture in its ethics code but did not also explicitly bar psychologists from taking part in interrogations. Many psychologists within and outside the organization had long opposed such problematic sections of the ethics code and had pushed for change.“Enough concerns were raised regarding the possible collusion with the government about interrogation that might have led to torture that we had to know” if they were true or not, said Kaslow in an interview with Psychiatric News. Much of the controversy focused on a 2002 revision of the association’s ethics code that permitted a psychologist confronted with a possible ethics violation to “adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority.” The provision was originally intended to protect practitioners in cases involving confidentiality, child custody, or the like. But combined with Bush administration legal directives that allowed “enhanced interrogation,” the phrase opened the door to potential abuses when questioning detainees.According to the Hoffman report, a number of the organization’s officials and staff members, “principally the APA [American Psychological Association] Ethics Director,” worked to “craft loose, high-level ethical guidelines that did not constrain DoD in any greater fashion than existing DoD interrogation guidelines.”“Torture is not interrogation,” Stephen Behnke, J.D., Ph.D., then director of the association’s ethics office told Psychiatric News in a 2007 interview, expressing the position of the association at the time. “Interrogation is an inherently psychological practice, when conducted in an ethical and competent manner.”“By explicitly declaring it ethical for psychologists to be involved in interrogations of detainees in DoD or CIA custody, while not setting strict and explicit limits on a psychologist’s involvement in the intentional infliction of psychological or physical pain in these situations, [association] officials were intentionally setting up loose and porous constraints, not tight ones, on this particular use of a psychologist’s skill,” the Hoffman report concluded. Their motive, according to the report, “was to align [the association] and curry favor with DoD.” About 7 percent of the association’s 122,500 members work “with or for the U.S. Department of Defense.”APA Questioned Ethics of Participation in Interrogations Early OnDrawing on its roots in medicine, APA’s views on torture and interrogation diverged early on from those of the American Psychological Association. In 2005, then-APA President Steven Sharfstein, M.D., went to Guantanamo with Ronald Levant, Ed.D., then president of the psychologists’ association. After returning to the United States, the two held an extended discussion with military officials. Levant said that as long as torture was not involved, psychologists could be consultants and involved directly in interrogations, Sharfstein recalled.“I took a very different stand,” Sharfstein told Psychiatric News. “Namely, that it was ethically problematic for physicians to be participating in these interrogations.”The APA Board of Trustees later issued a strong statement against psychiatrists’ participation in torture and interrogation as they contravene physicians’ call to do no harm.Psychology Association Looks to the FutureSharfstein noted that Hoffman’s report marked a positive step forward for the psychologists. “I commend the American Psychological Association for commissioning this report and for doing such a thorough investigation,” he said. “And I commend those psychologists who pushed and pushed and would not be deterred to see what the facts were around the role of psychologists in interrogation. It took a lot of courage.”In light of the report’s conclusions, Behnke’s contract with the American Psychological Association was “terminated” in July, according to Kaslow. The organization also announced the retirement of its chief executive officer and his deputy, as well as the resignation of its executive director for public and member communications.Besides creating a better system of internal checks and balances and clarifying its conflict of interest policy, the psychological association will revisit the role of psychologists in other forms of interrogation, like law enforcement and jury selection, she said. The organization also plans to reexamine the place of its Ethics Office and its activities, drawing on the expertise of psychologists, bioethicists, and others. The association also recently updated its ethics code stating that none of its provisions may be used to justify any violation of human rights, Kaslow said. “I feel genuinely apologetic for any psychologist’s involvement in abusive interrogation, for us not listening to the critics, and for us not being clear about our stance,” said Kaslow. ■“The Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture” can be accessed here. “Disciplines’ Roots Led to Different View of Role in Interrogations” in Psychiatric News is available here. ISSUES NewArchived