APA will not justify or defend human rights abuses.

(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Congratulations, American Psychological Association (APA), on re-writing your guidelines to unambiguously not justify or defend violations of human rights.  While a policy of not justifying or defending human rights abuses is not the strongest language possible, APA has unequivocally graduated beyond justifying or defending the ancient black arts of coerced confessions and abject psychological domination brutally secured using physical and psychological crowbars into consciousness.  

I don’t have a lot to say about this except that a profession that professes to excel at understanding the human psyche probably should not have availed itself of that knowledge to inflict expert levels of long-lasting psychological trauma on their fellow humans, or be associated with those who do, regardless of who asked or paid for such services.

I’ll refrain from offering any further sneering congratulations on the nature of these grave lapses in judgment or on the modest language not justifying or defending human rights abuses, and instead offer a heartfelt “thank you” for addressing this oversight at long last, insofar as you have, as well as thanking APA members who withheld their dues and/or support for APA until this policy was unambiguously clarified to not justify or defend human rights abuses.  

Let’s acknowledge this modest, but unambiguous win in the language of policy for all concerned.  Abusers of human rights can no longer use the APA policy to justify or defend themselves.

The newer, unambiguous guidelines (below) go into effect in June, 2010.

The standards, from APA’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002), address situations where psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, other governing legal authority, or organizational demands. Previously, it appeared that if psychologists could not resolve such conflicts, they could adhere to the law or demands of an organization without further consideration. That language has been deleted and this new sentence added: “Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.”

The meaning of these two standards (1.02 and 1.03) was called into question during the last Bush administration when the Justice Department issued legal rulings authorizing so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

“These amendments to the Ethics Code provide clear guidance to psychologists regarding their ethical obligations when conflicts arise between psychology ethics and the law or ethics and organizational demands,” said APA Ethics Director Stephen H. Behnke, PhD. “This action by the Council of Representatives makes all psychologists’ ethical responsibilities abundantly clear.”

Following are the two ethical standards and the changes adopted. Language that is underscored was newly adopted; language in brackets and with strikethrough was deleted.

1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands

If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.