scholarly journals The Hoffman Report: Psychologists and Torture. An Ethical Precaution for Psychologists

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-165
Author(s):  
K.S. Kryuchkov
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Abu Ghraib ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Ethical Codes ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
Ethical Violations ◽  
Per Se

The present paper introduces the readers to the Hoffman report — an independent attorney report on American Psychological Association (APA) officials’ participation in institutionalizing and developing torture techniques that were used to interrogate the prisoners of the secret Department of Defense prisons (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.). People in charge of the APA were shown to have changed the ethical standards and APA regulations in such a way as to enable psychologists to participate in the so-called enhanced interrogations. We present the context of the report and the key findings and conclusions. We discuss the reaction of the psychological community and cite a number of papers that analyze the report from the theoretical and empirical standpoint, and reflect on the causes of the events. This situation can be viewed as a precaution for Russian psychologists likewise in making ethical decisions. Conclusion: Ethical codes do not constitute ethics per se nor do they protect from possible ethical violations, partly because abusers often are not just those who know the codes, but also those who write them.

Method Tutorial

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-212
Author(s):  
Ebru Yucel ◽  
Danika Charles ◽  
D. J Angelone ◽  
Meredith Joppa
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Adults ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Sexuality Research ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Ethical Codes ◽  
Potential Source

This tutorial discusses ethical considerations for researchers conducting sexuality research with emerging adults. During this imperative research, participants may be asked to provide information that could be considered highly personal or intimate. This has been considered to be a potential source of distress for participants and, some have argued, a potential source of harm. This discussion is explored throughout the tutorial. This tutorial also provides a thorough review of the literature, including references to ethical codes of conduct from the National Institutes of Health and the American Psychological Association. In addition, it reviews several methods of conducting sexuality research and provides recommendations for minimizing the risk of harm. Overall, it is crucial for researchers to identify a balance between the risk of harm and their own scientific objectives.

scholarly journals The Hoffman report, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the defense of the nation: A personal view

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205510291879619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Seligman
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Learned Helplessness ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Personal View ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
Enhanced Interrogation

I was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency in the spring of 2002 about how the research on learned helplessness could help captured Americans resist and evade torture and interrogation. There was no discussion of how learned helplessness could be used with detainees nor any mention of the interrogation of detainees. James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen later created a program of “enhanced interrogation” of detainees and it was incorrectly reported that they based it on the theory of learned helplessness. I played no role at all in these developments, and I am grieved that scientific research created to relieve helplessness and depression might have been used for brutal interrogations. The unfounded attacks on me and others, however, may have been intended to discourage young psychologists from working with the Department of Defense, and I urge American Psychological Association not to waver in its long-standing commitment to serve the nation.

scholarly journals Comparison of Telehealth Related Ethics and Guidelines and a Checklist for Ethical Decision-making in Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Baumes ◽  
Marija Čolić ◽  
Sho Araiba
Keyword(s):  
Service Delivery ◽  
Applied Behavior Analysis ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Service Delivery Model ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Ethical Codes ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services have been provided primarily in the fields of healthcare and education across various settings using in-person service delivery model. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity of and demand for ABA services using telehealth have increased. The purpose of the present paper was to cross-examine the ethical codes and guidelines of different, but related fields of practice, and to discuss potential implications for telehealth-based ABA service delivery. We reviewed the telehealth-specific ethical codes and guidelines of the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers along with the related ABA literature. These organizations addressed several useful and unique ethical concerns that had not been addressed in ABA literature. We also developed a brief checklist for ABA practitioners to evaluate their telehealth readiness by meeting the legal, professional, and ethical requirements of the ABA services.

scholarly journals Are the American Psychological Association’s Detainee Interrogation Policies Ethical and Effective?

2011 ◽  
Vol 219 (3) ◽  
pp. 150-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Pope
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Abu Ghraib ◽  
American Psychological

After 9–11, the United States began interrogating detainees at settings such as Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo. The American Psychological Association (APA) supported psychologists’ involvement in interrogations, adopted formal policies, and made an array of public assurances. This article’s purpose is to highlight key APA decisions, policies, procedures, documents, and public statements in urgent need of rethinking and to suggest questions that may be useful in a serious assessment, such as, “However well intended, were APA’s interrogation policies ethically sound?”; “Were they valid, realistic, and able to achieve their purpose?”; “Were other approaches available that would address interrogation issues more directly, comprehensively, and actively, that were more ethically and scientifically based, and that would have had a greater likelihood of success?”; and “Should APA continue to endorse its post-9–11 detainee interrogation policies?”

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document