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.
The following is an exchange of letters between Psychologists for an Ethical APA and Melba Vasquez, APA President (2011)
Dear Editor,
On October 12, 2011, the following letter was sent to Norman Anderson, PhD CEO of the APA, Melba J. T. Vasquez, PhD, President, Stephen Behnke, PhD Director, APA Board of Ethics; APA Board of Directors, APA Council of Representatives.
As former and current members of the American Psychological Association, and authors of the referendum accepted by the membership in 2008, we view the recent publication of the Casebook, submitted by the Ethics Committee for comment, as yet another chapter in APA's failure to take a meaningful stand against psychologist involvement in torture.
For years we have struggled with the APA over its complicity with America's detention and interrogation practices in the “War on Terror.” That complicity began in 2002 when the APA's Ethics Code was rewritten and changes were made that severely weakened the principle of “do no harm.”
In 2005, a Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) concluded that psychologists could assist interrogations at detention sites like Guantanamo Bay, even though the International Committee of the Red Cross had stated that prisoners there were being detained in conditions tantamount to torture.
Repeatedly, it has required activism on the part of APA members and other psychologists to hold the Ethics Committee and APA administration accountable to “do no harm.” In 2006, 2007, and 2008, membership pressure led the APA to issue formal statements opposing torture. Persistent urging by psychologists finally led to a change in Ethical Standard 1.02, which, after the 2002 revisions, had permitted a psychologist facing a conflict between ethics and an authority to consult with and submit to that authority, if the psychologist chose to do so. Standard 1.02 now effectively prohibits psychologists who violate international human rights laws from using a defense of “following order