This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/13/psychologists-no-hippocratic-oath-torture-cia
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Psychologists could torture because they have no Hippocratic oath | Psychologists could torture because they have no Hippocratic oath |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| It should come as no surprise that the architects of the CIA’s enhanced torture program were psychologists and not psychiatrists. During my psychiatry residency in the federal prison system, there was one divide between doctors and prison guards that could not be crossed: I was exempt from firearms training. The psychologists in my cohort, however, were required to achieve proficiency on the shooting range like any other correctional officer. | It should come as no surprise that the architects of the CIA’s enhanced torture program were psychologists and not psychiatrists. During my psychiatry residency in the federal prison system, there was one divide between doctors and prison guards that could not be crossed: I was exempt from firearms training. The psychologists in my cohort, however, were required to achieve proficiency on the shooting range like any other correctional officer. |
| Prison psychologists do not walk around with guns during their normal routines. However, in a crisis situation such as a riot or an escape, they would be obligated to obtain a gun from storage and be prepared to use it. It’s entirely possible that a psychologist who had been listening to an inmate pouring out their heart out one day, could be in the position of having to open fire on that very same person the next. | Prison psychologists do not walk around with guns during their normal routines. However, in a crisis situation such as a riot or an escape, they would be obligated to obtain a gun from storage and be prepared to use it. It’s entirely possible that a psychologist who had been listening to an inmate pouring out their heart out one day, could be in the position of having to open fire on that very same person the next. |
| Why was I exempt from this violent requirement? Two and a half millennia ago, Hippocrates wrote an ethics pledge for all physicians that included the words: “I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage”. Though some parts of the oath may be archaic, Hippocrates deserves great credit for understanding the need to publicly affirm one’s standards of conduct in a field in which human life is on the line. | Why was I exempt from this violent requirement? Two and a half millennia ago, Hippocrates wrote an ethics pledge for all physicians that included the words: “I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage”. Though some parts of the oath may be archaic, Hippocrates deserves great credit for understanding the need to publicly affirm one’s standards of conduct in a field in which human life is on the line. |
| Related: Psychologists' collusion with US torture limited our ability to decry it anywhere | Dr Steven Miles | Related: Psychologists' collusion with US torture limited our ability to decry it anywhere | Dr Steven Miles |
| Some doctors break the pledge, but they are outliers. I didn’t have to ask for an exemption from firearms training and risk seeming like I wasn’t a team player. A social norm had been handed down to me, and it was taken for granted that anyone who had taken the auspicious oath would not be willing to purposefully hurt, let alone kill, anyone. | |
| This is especially significant now that it’s become clear that torture scandal went all the way to highest levels within the American Psychological Association. Certainly most psychologists devote their time to helping people (and I’m grateful for the efforts of my colleagues), but the lack of a clear demarcation between right and wrong allows for too much wiggle room and rationalization. It is unclear if any MDs were involved in the interrogations, but certainly none have admitted to it, and there is no evidence that any were. Psychologists James E Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who helped to design the post 9/11 torture program, boast about their very lucrative roles. Whether it was wrong for psychologists to participate in the program, and even waterboard prisoners with their own hands, was considered a subject for debate at the time. For a physician, there could never have been any debate. | This is especially significant now that it’s become clear that torture scandal went all the way to highest levels within the American Psychological Association. Certainly most psychologists devote their time to helping people (and I’m grateful for the efforts of my colleagues), but the lack of a clear demarcation between right and wrong allows for too much wiggle room and rationalization. It is unclear if any MDs were involved in the interrogations, but certainly none have admitted to it, and there is no evidence that any were. Psychologists James E Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who helped to design the post 9/11 torture program, boast about their very lucrative roles. Whether it was wrong for psychologists to participate in the program, and even waterboard prisoners with their own hands, was considered a subject for debate at the time. For a physician, there could never have been any debate. |
| The Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. But it does matter. By putting medicine’s unchangeable ideals in writing, rather than simply counting on the judgment of the individual, a slippery slope has been avoided. The American Psychological Association’s ethics code, on the other hand, seems to have been malleable and guided more by avarice than ancient wisdom. | The Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. But it does matter. By putting medicine’s unchangeable ideals in writing, rather than simply counting on the judgment of the individual, a slippery slope has been avoided. The American Psychological Association’s ethics code, on the other hand, seems to have been malleable and guided more by avarice than ancient wisdom. |
| Related: 'A national hero': psychologist who warned of torture collusion gets her due | |
| Medical doctors will never speak with pride about forcing a human being to experience simulated drowning, and no job listing will ever read: “MD needed. Must be capable of treating, healing and, if necessary, killing patients.” If psychologists want to regain the trust of their clients and society, they must make it clear that the likes of James E Mitchell and Bruce Jessen are pariahs, and that the field of Psychology will soon be introducing a comparable, rigid ethics pledge of its own. | Medical doctors will never speak with pride about forcing a human being to experience simulated drowning, and no job listing will ever read: “MD needed. Must be capable of treating, healing and, if necessary, killing patients.” If psychologists want to regain the trust of their clients and society, they must make it clear that the likes of James E Mitchell and Bruce Jessen are pariahs, and that the field of Psychology will soon be introducing a comparable, rigid ethics pledge of its own. |
Previous version
1
Next version