Psychological Torture

I post a new MCAT CARS Passage everyday for anyone who wants to practice for the CARS Section. Each article is selected to meet the AAMC MCAT criteria.

Subscribe by email to receive a new practice passage each morning.

February 19, 2017 – MCAT CARS Passage

Question: What is your summary of the author’s main ideas. Post your own answer in the comments before reading those made by others.

When James Risen, a New York Times reporter, published a book last autumn accusing the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest professional organisation of American psychologists, of working with the Bush administration on torture, the APA issued a swift rebuttal: “APA is committed to fostering the highest ethical standards for the profession… We will continue to proactively communicate our strict and explicit no torture under any circumstances policy to federal officials so they are fully aware of the appropriate restrictions on psychologists’ roles.” In a spirit of transparency, the APA commissioned an independent investigation to confirm that neither the association nor its members, who number around 122,500, endorsed the government’s use of enhanced interrogation tactics.

The investigation, led by David Hoffman of the law firm Sidley Austin, concluded this month with the publication of a 542-page report. Its findings diverge considerably from the APA’s expectations. Far from upholding their Hippocratic oath to “do no harm”, APA psychologists did indeed work with officials from the Defense Department and the CIA to facilitate the torture of detainees. This involved issuing loose ethical guidelines that endorsed existing DoD interrogation policies and permitted psychologists to participate at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—unlike their colleagues in the field of psychiatry, who refused to back the government’s evolving interrogation tactics. Though the APA’s policies adhered to US law, they violated medical ethics.

Stephen Behnke, ethics director of the APA, was at the heart of this effort. In a series of e-mail exchanges, he sought pre-clearance from leaders in the US Army Special Operations Command before determining what APA’s position should be. Perhaps the most disturbing discovery is the self-serving, amoral tenor of APA’s approach to this issue generally. The report notes:

“While we found many emails and discussions regarding how best to position APA to maximize its influence with and build its positive relationship with the Defense Department…we found little evidence of analyses or discussions about the best or right ethical position to take in light of the nature of the profession and the special skill that psychologists possess regarding how our minds and emotions work—a special skill that presumably allows psychologists to be especially good at both healing and harming.”

It seems Mr Risen’s argument that a rising “homeland security-industrial complex” co-opted medical expertise for military ends holds up. But why did the Department of Defense seek the APA’s blessing in the first place? And what did the APA stand to gain from co-operating?

In 2002 the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department issued memos defining torture, narrowly, as acts that intentionally cause physical or severe mental pain. It follows that actions could not be considered torture if interrogators could show that they did not intend to cause such pain. Seeking out the APA’s approval was a way for DoD officials to prove that they did not harbour this intent. This lent a veneer of professionalism and legitimacy to interrogators’ dubious practices.

It was a veneer the APA was happy to lend. This is in large part because the DoD is one of the largest employers of psychologists in the country. Today, 7% of APA members work with or for the department in a range of roles, including as clinicians and researchers. As of 2010, 3,400 psychologists were employed by the Veterans Administration alone. Since 2007, the DoD has also spent more than $730m to fund research on psychological health, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury, according to the Hoffman report. At least $120m in grants were awarded for research on behavioural, cognitive and psychological therapies between 2007 and 2011.

This partnership is mostly a good thing. Many psychologists are hired to help military personnel and veterans grapple with PTSD and other mental maladies. But this alliance also apparently encouraged the APA to accommodate less savoury practices. With evidence from correspondence, documents and interviews, Mr Hoffman and his associates concluded that the APA’s endorsement of torture was largely motivated by a desire to promote the profession and strengthen its relationship with the DoD. When the department was negotiating its torture guidelines, it was also figuring out how psychologists and psychiatrists might play a role in intelligence operations. E-mails show APA officials were eager to be involved and, especially, to not lose out to psychiatrists—an expression of the long-standing rivalry between the professions. (As PhDs rather than MDs, psychologists are often defensive about their medical credibility.)

By 2006, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association had both issued decrees prohibiting their members from participating in interrogations. APA had not, and this support was duly rewarded. In 2006 William Winkenwerder, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Health Affairs, issued a DoD instruction prioritising psychologists over psychiatrists as behavioural-science “consultants”. Mr Winkenwerder explained that the APA’s “clear support” for the role of psychologists in interrogations “influenced our thinking”.

The APA is now scrambling to distance itself from the military’s intelligence activities and to reaffirm its commitments to medical ethics. An initial set of policy and procedural changes includes a new prohibition on psychologists participating in interrogations by military or intelligence services. The proposals have been accompanied by an exodus of high-level APA officials. Mr Behnke was removed from his position at APA on July 8th. Norman Anderson, the chief executive, and Michael Honaker, his deputy, announced their retirement shortly thereafter. Rhea Farberman, director of communications, has resigned. The association is now left to answer some thorny questions about how a profession devoted to mental health could so easily be persuaded to pursue mental anguish instead.

Adapted from economist

Review

Leave a comment below with what you understood to be the author’s main ideas. Ask about this daily passage in office hours/workshops for help.

Subscribe to my Daily CARS mailing list by entering your email.

The full list of daily articles is available here.

This was an article on Psychology.

Have a great day.
Jack Westin

[jetpack_subscription_form title=”Subscribe to Jack Westin’s Daily CARS” subscribe_text=”New MCAT CARS passage every morning.” subscribe_button=”Subscribe” show_subscribers_total=”0″]

 

35 Comments


  1. APA=allow psychologist to torture=self serving reasons w.DoD

    Reply

  2. APA is unethical bc it aids in torture instead of prevent it

    Reply

  3. MI: APA + DOD partnership in torture bad, neg tone

    Reply

  4. APA endorsed torture w/ DoD = unethical + motivated by self-serving purposes
    new prohibition on psychologists participating in interrogation by military and intelligence operation

    Reply

  5. APA involved w torture of DoD= bad + done to ^ relationship

    Reply

  6. MI: APA voilated medical ethics, pain = torture
    + APA W/ DOD +positive relation for profession +finance

    Reply

  7. The American Psychological Association (APA) has a long relationship with the United States Department of Defense, largely due to the number of psychologists employed to help veterans. However, there is a dark side to this relationship in the realization that many APA members consulted with the Dept. on torture and interrogation. When these activitie came to light, it brought public shame to the APA. Most of the public view psychologists has being held to some higher ethical standard, similar to psychiatrists, their medical counterparts. The APA’s involvement in such unethical behavior was rooted in an attempt to bolster their reputation with the Dept, as well as a feeling of obligation to the one of the largest employers of psychologists in the country.

    Reply

  8. APA compromise medical ethics to work with gov for torture. Trying to apologized for past. Tone is Neutral

    Reply

  9. APA violated medical ethics in partnership with DoD
    APA creating new policies to prevent future violations

    Reply

  10. NYT reporter revealed the APA violating medical ethics by their amoral endorsement and alliance with DoD regarding torture

    Reply

  11. Report on the APA damage control after being associated with torture and the DoD. Negative tone

    Reply

  12. MI: APA participation with DoD allowed for torture to be acceptable/ interrogations, decline in APA medical ethics.

    APOV: Negative–“disturbed” (P3)

    Reply

  13. MI: APA participation w/ military intelligence violates medical ethics

    Reply

  14. MIP: There are two:
    1. APA –> torture through DoD (strongest MIP)
    2. APA mutualistic with DoD

    Reply

  15. APA + DoD= joint efforts in torture

    Reply

  16. APA and DoD relationship examined

    Reply

  17. APA = unethical + used torture to maintain relationship with DOD

    Reply

  18. Risen’s criticism that the APA supported torture (unethical) by the DOD was correct; fostering a “partnership” (employment) between DoD and APA was the main driver for why the APA supported the DoD’s approach to torture.

    Reply

  19. Questionable ethics of APA.

    Reply

  20. APA due to ties with the DoD facilitated torture and practiced questionable ethics in order to deepen ties, secure funding and jobs, and improve their reputation.

    Reply

  21. APA and DoD = unethical/controversial role in torture practices

    Reply

  22. APA = torture, not always good partnership (between APA & psychologists)

    Reply

  23. APA endorse torture despite ethics, develop mutual relationship with DoD.

    Reply

  24. DOD + APA good relationship= more employment—->ethics violations

    Reply

  25. APA against torture…some psychologists w/ DoD influence violated medical ethics

    Reply

  26. MI: APA involv in tort to inc relation with DOD
    tone: neut

    Reply

  27. MI: APA to endorse DoD’s torture methods for partnership, violated medical ethics

    Reply

  28. APA = endorse torture via interrogation to promote assoc w DoD -> medically unethical

    Reply

  29. APA+DoD=torture, APA=medically unethical

    Reply

  30. MI: APA partnership with Dod = violating medical ethics

    Reply

  31. APA breached ethical guidelines

    Reply

  32. MIP: APA endorsed torture to strengthen relations w/ DoD + now trying to distance; tone = ‘-‘ towards APA

    Reply

  33. Hoffman report = APA involvement in interrogation + violated medical ethics; APA self interest in building stronger relationships with the military; DoD financially supports APA; APA now wants to separate any relations
    Author = exposing APA

    Reply

Leave a Reply