Critique of the American Psychological Association's Interrogation Policies
Author Information
Author(s): Brad Olson, Stephen Soldz, Martha Davis
Hypothesis
Does the American Psychological Association's policy on psychologist involvement in interrogations adequately protect human rights?
Conclusion
The critique argues that the APA's policies on psychologist involvement in interrogations are inconsistent with ethical standards and fail to protect human rights.
Supporting Evidence
- The PENS report was accepted without a full vote from the APA Council, raising concerns about its legitimacy.
- The critique highlights the lack of operational definitions for key terms like 'interrogation' and 'torture' in the PENS report.
- The authors argue that the APA's focus on national security undermines the ethical treatment of detainees.
Takeaway
This study looks at how psychologists should not be involved in interrogations because it can lead to harm and goes against their ethical responsibilities.
Methodology
The authors analyze the PENS report and its implications for ethical practice in psychology.
Potential Biases
The critique acknowledges potential biases in the PENS task force due to its composition and the influence of military connections.
Limitations
The critique may not encompass all perspectives on the issue of psychologist involvement in interrogations.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website