FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of health services 2014-01, Vol.44 (3), p.615-625
Hauptverfasser: Boyd, J. Wesley, LoCicero, Alice, Malowney, Monica, Aldis, Rajendra, Marlin, Robert P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 625
container_issue 3
container_start_page 615
container_title International journal of health services
container_volume 44
creator Boyd, J. Wesley
LoCicero, Alice
Malowney, Monica
Aldis, Rajendra
Marlin, Robert P.
description The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and intelligence entities. We then review the APA's statements about the permissibility of psychologist participation in the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists. These issues are significant in and of themselves and because the VA and DOD have been described as "growth careers" for psychologists of the future (1). Additionally, the Health Care Personnel Delivery System allows the drafting of civilian clinical psychologists into military service even in the absence of a general draft. In light of psychologists' extensive involvement in the interrogation process of suspected terrorists, and the possibility that psychologists without prior military experience may be drafted, we wondered how much psychologists have been taught about their ethical duties should they find themselves in military settings. The results of our pilot study of U.S. psychology graduate students, which assessed their knowledge of military ethics, raise concerns that psychologists receive inadequate formal training in these matters. This may leave psychologists vulnerable to misinformation about proper ethical conduct in their future work.
doi_str_mv 10.2190/HS.44.3.j
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1692286488</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>45140459</jstor_id><sage_id>10.2190_HS.44.3.j</sage_id><sourcerecordid>45140459</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-8aca18dd408f25c3d1173832a060f5d00f87f2a69ea325fce78d7bb984c4f2c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0c9P2zAUwHFrAo2O7bA_AOQT2iQS_Ds2t9CFOlJbEHYPnCw3cRBRSyBuD_vvl6rAaYeenp700ffwHgA_MUoJVuhKm5SxlKbtFzDCnOGEMaGOwAghgpKMYnYCvsXY7laB0VdwQrjAUikyAvY2L6flfAILq8uxgRjha3hvHsf6bno3KY01l9DqAi5Sk8LZQG3-8AgLY_ObaWn0rJjbS5jP_0C9mOVz-FBOtDXfwXHjVzH8eJ-nYHFb2LFOdslxPk0qRrNNIn3lsaxrhmRDeEVrjDMqKfFIoIbXCDUya4gXKnhKeFOFTNbZcqkkq1hDKkJPwa9997Xv3rYhbtz6OVZhtfIvodtGh4UiRAom5YEUUZQdQDnPhBjudwgljGCu8EB_72nVdzH2oXGv_fPa938dRm73RaeNY8xR1w72_D27Xa5D_Sk_3jaAiz2I_im4ttv2L8Od_1s628M2brr-M8Q4ZohxRf8BB2ejGg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1652421591</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Boyd, J. Wesley ; LoCicero, Alice ; Malowney, Monica ; Aldis, Rajendra ; Marlin, Robert P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Boyd, J. Wesley ; LoCicero, Alice ; Malowney, Monica ; Aldis, Rajendra ; Marlin, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><description>The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and intelligence entities. We then review the APA's statements about the permissibility of psychologist participation in the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists. These issues are significant in and of themselves and because the VA and DOD have been described as "growth careers" for psychologists of the future (1). Additionally, the Health Care Personnel Delivery System allows the drafting of civilian clinical psychologists into military service even in the absence of a general draft. In light of psychologists' extensive involvement in the interrogation process of suspected terrorists, and the possibility that psychologists without prior military experience may be drafted, we wondered how much psychologists have been taught about their ethical duties should they find themselves in military settings. The results of our pilot study of U.S. psychology graduate students, which assessed their knowledge of military ethics, raise concerns that psychologists receive inadequate formal training in these matters. This may leave psychologists vulnerable to misinformation about proper ethical conduct in their future work.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7314</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1541-4469</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2190/HS.44.3.j</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25618992</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IJHSC6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc</publisher><subject>Armed Forces ; Associations ; Careers ; Ethics ; Female ; Graduate students ; Human Rights ; Human Rights in the Military: The Role of Psychology ; Humans ; Intelligence ; Male ; Medical personnel ; Medical service ; Military ; Military Service ; Participation ; Pilot Projects ; Professional Ethics ; Psychologists ; Psychology ; Psychology - ethics ; Students - psychology ; Terrorism ; Terrorists ; Torture ; Training ; U.S.A ; United States ; United States Department of Defense - ethics ; Veterans ; Vulnerability</subject><ispartof>International journal of health services, 2014-01, Vol.44 (3), p.615-625</ispartof><rights>2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.</rights><rights>2014 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-8aca18dd408f25c3d1173832a060f5d00f87f2a69ea325fce78d7bb984c4f2c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-8aca18dd408f25c3d1173832a060f5d00f87f2a69ea325fce78d7bb984c4f2c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45140459$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/45140459$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,21798,27842,27901,27902,33752,43597,43598,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25618992$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boyd, J. Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LoCicero, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malowney, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aldis, Rajendra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marlin, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><title>FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS</title><title>International journal of health services</title><addtitle>Int J Health Serv</addtitle><description>The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and intelligence entities. We then review the APA's statements about the permissibility of psychologist participation in the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists. These issues are significant in and of themselves and because the VA and DOD have been described as "growth careers" for psychologists of the future (1). Additionally, the Health Care Personnel Delivery System allows the drafting of civilian clinical psychologists into military service even in the absence of a general draft. In light of psychologists' extensive involvement in the interrogation process of suspected terrorists, and the possibility that psychologists without prior military experience may be drafted, we wondered how much psychologists have been taught about their ethical duties should they find themselves in military settings. The results of our pilot study of U.S. psychology graduate students, which assessed their knowledge of military ethics, raise concerns that psychologists receive inadequate formal training in these matters. This may leave psychologists vulnerable to misinformation about proper ethical conduct in their future work.</description><subject>Armed Forces</subject><subject>Associations</subject><subject>Careers</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Graduate students</subject><subject>Human Rights</subject><subject>Human Rights in the Military: The Role of Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intelligence</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical service</subject><subject>Military</subject><subject>Military Service</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Professional Ethics</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology - ethics</subject><subject>Students - psychology</subject><subject>Terrorism</subject><subject>Terrorists</subject><subject>Torture</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Department of Defense - ethics</subject><subject>Veterans</subject><subject>Vulnerability</subject><issn>0020-7314</issn><issn>1541-4469</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0c9P2zAUwHFrAo2O7bA_AOQT2iQS_Ds2t9CFOlJbEHYPnCw3cRBRSyBuD_vvl6rAaYeenp700ffwHgA_MUoJVuhKm5SxlKbtFzDCnOGEMaGOwAghgpKMYnYCvsXY7laB0VdwQrjAUikyAvY2L6flfAILq8uxgRjha3hvHsf6bno3KY01l9DqAi5Sk8LZQG3-8AgLY_ObaWn0rJjbS5jP_0C9mOVz-FBOtDXfwXHjVzH8eJ-nYHFb2LFOdslxPk0qRrNNIn3lsaxrhmRDeEVrjDMqKfFIoIbXCDUya4gXKnhKeFOFTNbZcqkkq1hDKkJPwa9997Xv3rYhbtz6OVZhtfIvodtGh4UiRAom5YEUUZQdQDnPhBjudwgljGCu8EB_72nVdzH2oXGv_fPa938dRm73RaeNY8xR1w72_D27Xa5D_Sk_3jaAiz2I_im4ttv2L8Od_1s628M2brr-M8Q4ZohxRf8BB2ejGg</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>Boyd, J. Wesley</creator><creator>LoCicero, Alice</creator><creator>Malowney, Monica</creator><creator>Aldis, Rajendra</creator><creator>Marlin, Robert P.</creator><general>Baywood Publishing Company, Inc</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS</title><author>Boyd, J. Wesley ; LoCicero, Alice ; Malowney, Monica ; Aldis, Rajendra ; Marlin, Robert P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-8aca18dd408f25c3d1173832a060f5d00f87f2a69ea325fce78d7bb984c4f2c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Armed Forces</topic><topic>Associations</topic><topic>Careers</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Graduate students</topic><topic>Human Rights</topic><topic>Human Rights in the Military: The Role of Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intelligence</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical service</topic><topic>Military</topic><topic>Military Service</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Professional Ethics</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology - ethics</topic><topic>Students - psychology</topic><topic>Terrorism</topic><topic>Terrorists</topic><topic>Torture</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Department of Defense - ethics</topic><topic>Veterans</topic><topic>Vulnerability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boyd, J. Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LoCicero, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malowney, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aldis, Rajendra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marlin, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>International journal of health services</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boyd, J. Wesley</au><au>LoCicero, Alice</au><au>Malowney, Monica</au><au>Aldis, Rajendra</au><au>Marlin, Robert P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS</atitle><jtitle>International journal of health services</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Health Serv</addtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>615</spage><epage>625</epage><pages>615-625</pages><issn>0020-7314</issn><eissn>1541-4469</eissn><coden>IJHSC6</coden><abstract>The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and intelligence entities. We then review the APA's statements about the permissibility of psychologist participation in the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists. These issues are significant in and of themselves and because the VA and DOD have been described as "growth careers" for psychologists of the future (1). Additionally, the Health Care Personnel Delivery System allows the drafting of civilian clinical psychologists into military service even in the absence of a general draft. In light of psychologists' extensive involvement in the interrogation process of suspected terrorists, and the possibility that psychologists without prior military experience may be drafted, we wondered how much psychologists have been taught about their ethical duties should they find themselves in military settings. The results of our pilot study of U.S. psychology graduate students, which assessed their knowledge of military ethics, raise concerns that psychologists receive inadequate formal training in these matters. This may leave psychologists vulnerable to misinformation about proper ethical conduct in their future work.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>Baywood Publishing Company, Inc</pub><pmid>25618992</pmid><doi>10.2190/HS.44.3.j</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7314
ispartof International journal of health services, 2014-01, Vol.44 (3), p.615-625
issn 0020-7314
1541-4469
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1692286488
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; PAIS Index; SAGE Complete; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Armed Forces
Associations
Careers
Ethics
Female
Graduate students
Human Rights
Human Rights in the Military: The Role of Psychology
Humans
Intelligence
Male
Medical personnel
Medical service
Military
Military Service
Participation
Pilot Projects
Professional Ethics
Psychologists
Psychology
Psychology - ethics
Students - psychology
Terrorism
Terrorists
Torture
Training
U.S.A
United States
United States Department of Defense - ethics
Veterans
Vulnerability
title FAILING ETHICS 101: PSYCHOLOGISTS, THE U.S. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T00%3A39%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=FAILING%20ETHICS%20101:%20PSYCHOLOGISTS,%20THE%20U.S.%20MILITARY%20ESTABLISHMENT,%20AND%20HUMAN%20RIGHTS&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20health%20services&rft.au=Boyd,%20J.%20Wesley&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=615&rft.epage=625&rft.pages=615-625&rft.issn=0020-7314&rft.eissn=1541-4469&rft.coden=IJHSC6&rft_id=info:doi/10.2190/HS.44.3.j&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E45140459%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1652421591&rft_id=info:pmid/25618992&rft_jstor_id=45140459&rft_sage_id=10.2190_HS.44.3.j&rfr_iscdi=true