Ethics and interrogations: Comparing and contrasting the American Psychological, American Medical and American Psychiatric Association positions

Psychologists and Interrogations: Ethical Dilemmas in Times of War

“…As Behnke (2006) argued, psychologists have training in understanding human behavior creating a "unique" role to fill in these interrogations, which is to "guard against 'behavioral drift' on the part of the interrogators" (p. 67). "Behavioral drift" is described as "a deviation from professionally and ethically acceptable behavior and so may lead to coercive interrogation techniques," and psychologists "are trained to intervene and prevent this" (p. 67).…”

“…(American Psychiatric Associa tion, 2006, ¶ 2, part b) In contrast, the APA and AMA use a similar analysis of their respective ethics codes, balancing their duties to an individual with their responsibility to society. Both conclude that professionals belonging to their organizations may ethically participate as consultants in military interrogations (Behnke, 2006). Specifically, the APA statement notes that the Task Force stated that it is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes … engaging in such consultative and advisory roles entails a delicate balance of ethical considerations … to assist in ensuring that these processes are safe and ethical for all participants.…”

Ethics and the invisible psychologist.

“…However, ethical standards in the mental health professions demand integrity, scientific validity, striving for objectivity, and respect for persons. Deceptive and coercive interrogation techniques violate these moral values (ArboledaFlorez, 2006;Behnke, 2006aBehnke, , 2006bJanofsky, 2006).…”

“…Shameful behaviors by military personnel dealing with detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or the Guantanamo Bay detention site (e.g., intimidation with dogs, sleep deprivation, infliction of physical discomforts, forced nudity, and other types of humiliation) have rightly attracted condemnation. APA has clearly and repeatedly stated that psychologists who commit role violations (i.e., mixing health services delivery and interrogation support) or who participate in any way in torture or inhumane or degrading practices have violated its Ethics Code (Behnke, 2006a(Behnke, , 2006b.…”

Getting dirty: Psychology's history of power.

“…There is nothing startling about finding psychologists caught up everywhere in this field, from purifying complicity with interrogation of illegally held prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo as mental health care provision in the United States (Behnke, 2006) to an almost complete unwillingness to discuss the war at all in the United Kingdom (Roberts & Esgate, n.d.). It would be wrong, however, to assume that all forms of "mainstream" psychology are complicit with the war, or devoid of useful insights simply because they conduct experiments.…”