On January 18, 2007, the governing board of the American Psychoanalytic Association approved a position statement strongly opposing torture and the involvement of any of its members in torture:
The American Psychoanalytic Association joins with other mental health and medical professional organizations in strongly condemning the use of torture. As an organization of psychoanalysts who have devoted their lives to helping people undo the effects of trauma in their lives, we strongly protest any governmentally administered and governmentally approved torture of people who are detained. Torture degrades those tortured and those torturing. The effects of that physical and moral degradation, we know, are transmitted to the families and offspring of both victims and perpetrators.
We also strongly condemn the participation or oversight by any mental health or medical personnel in any and all aspects of torture. Such actions are contrary to the basic ethical principles fundamental to the helping professions.
An inquiry to me by Louis Rose, a professor of history at Otterbein College in May 2006, led me to speak with Jon Meyer. I learned that he, as president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, had written to Senator John McCain, in November 2005, strongly supporting McCain's bill against torture.
Thereafter, Prudy Gourguechon encouraged me in drafting a simple and clear statement, written with Roberta Apfel, that was unanimously approved by the governing boards.
There is a long history of analysts having to risk their careers and indeed their lives to stand up against governmental persecution and torture. I believe several later-to-become analysts were present at the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, an experience that translated into a clear commitment to help future victims of torture. Many analysts worked with survivors of Nazi persecution, including helping them obtain reparations from the German government. There have been numerous workshops over the years at national and international psychoanalytic meetings on working with the aftermath of such awful experiences. At the past few meetings of APsaA, there have been workshops on treating victims of torture, led by Michael Grodin, Apfel, and me, and a number of members and affiliates of the Association have been active in programs that treat victims of torture.
There is a long history of analysts having to risk their careers and indeed their lives to stand up against governmental persecution and torture.
An unfortunate side of the involvement of organized psychoanalysis on the issue of collaboration in torture emerged, more generally, during the period of military juntas in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, where many members suffered directly and indirectly. Allegations of some analysts being relatively sympathetic to the junta in Argentina have left residual bitterness. Then, there was the cause célèbre: A candidate in a Brazilian psychoanalytic society, Rio I, had been heavily involved with the military in torture activities. Helena Besserman-Vianna, who first reported this, was herself later vilified, sued, and threatened with expulsion from her society for her act of “whistle-blowing.” She wrote of this in her 1997 book, Politique de la psych-analyse face à la dictature et à la torture. N'en parlez à personne (Paris: Editions L'Harmattan). Source is Bernard Rubin's article, found at .
Three main mental health associations, sensitized to the issue of torture by revelations of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, have issued position papers prior to our own. The National Association of Social Workers strongly condemned torture and any involvement by its members in any aspect of planning or implementing “interrogations.” The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement last May, which some claim has loopholes in it that might allow members to participate in certain situations. The American Psychological Association's statement against torture and participation in it by members has been very controversial, with some members arguing that it is too loose and permissive.
Accordingly, there is a virtue in the simplicity and clarity of APsaA's statement that does not allow moral loopholes. Two articles that address the “permissible under some conditions” fallacy are Leo Rangell's classic post-Watergate piece, “Psychoanalytic Perspective: Syndrome of Compromise of Integrity” (IJP, 1974, 55:3) and the surgeon-writer Atul Gawande's article on physician participation in the death penalty in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 23, 2006. Gawande's interviews of physicians participating in executions led him to change radically from his previous position of being willing to consider the possibility of the virtue of such involvement to arguing for a categorical ban on this practice.
I strongly urge our Association to incorporate the statement into our Code of Ethics. Codes alone do not make ethical behavior but they help in reinforcing internal moral codes and interact with necessary legal efforts to oppose the use of torture. Professional codes of ethics lend necessary moral and legal support to individuals in the military or other institutions where they might be compromised. We have decided not to be bystanders; let us take the next step.
Bennett Simon, M.D., is training and supervising analyst at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School (Cambridge Health Alliance), and an active member of the Refugee Asylum Network, Physicians for Human Rights.