You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
At its meeting in February of 2010, the APA Council of Representatives (COR) voted to delete the sentence in Ethics Code Standard 1.02 (and 1.03) that allowed psychologists to follow regulations or governing authorities rather than the standards of the Ethics Code. In addition, the Council added the phrase “Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights” By making clear that the standards of the code trump authority, even legal authority, thus striking the “Nuremberg defense” from the APA Ethics Code, the COR closed a major loophole in adherence to the principles of the code. This decisive shift represents a clear victory for the many psychologists, including a good number from Division 39, who had opposed 1.02 as a serious flaw that could be used to circumvent the rest of the code and justify unethical behavior. Perhaps most importantly, it gives the entire code greater integrity and legitimacy to both the professional and public worlds. In my view, the entire organization can be proud of establishing an ethics code that requires unequivocal adherence to human rights.
Despite the salutary outcome, there are troubling questions raised by the conduct of the Ethics Committee (EC) during the controversy over changing 1.02. In 2005, due to the intrepid efforts of Division 39's Dr. Neil Altman, the COR voted to ask the EC to consider changing 1.02 so that any behavior departing from the ethics code due to following a regulation, must be “in accordance with basic human rights.” Such language would have made Standard 1.02 consistent with the aspirational section of the code. However, it took 4 and one-half years for the Committee to issue a 13 page report, much of which was consumed with the history of Standard 1.02 and not even two full pages of which was given over to actual analysis. The report concluded that 1.02 could not be changed because the implications of such a shift have not been explored and require “further review.