AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program

Current Issue | Past Issues | About the Report

Report on Science and Human Rights

Fall/Winter 2005 Vol XXV, No. 2

Psychology and Human Rights: The Ignacio Martin-Baro Fund in review

Lauren Chow
Science and Human Rights Intern

The Ignacio Martin-Baro Fund for Mental Health & Human Rights, a group promoting progressive community-based activism in the ?elds of human rights and mental health, is working to increase awareness of allegations of mental health personnel impropriety during interrogations of detainees in U.S. military detention centers. The Fund is currently organizing petition drives to both the U.S. Congress and the American Psychological Association (APA) to address issues of complicity by mental health professionals and to outline needed policy changes.

The International Committee for the Red Cross has documented several violations of medical ethics, including the release of detainees’ medical records to interrogation teams. Using these records, “behavioral science consultation teams” made up of military physicians and psychiatrists designed individualized interrogation plans, including sleep deprivation and dietary and environmental manipulation. Numerous independent detainee testimonies and accounts provided by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International contain similar accounts.

Various codes of medical ethics prohibit the complicity of medical personnel in torture, from the Hippocratic Oath to the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics. The latter affirms it is a “gross contravention of medical ethics” for health personnel to engage actively or passively in acts constituting torture. While the Department of Defense does establish a clear policy of noninvolvement for medical personnel bound by doctor-patient ethics, the policy creates a loophole allowing scientific and medical personnel uninvolved in detainee care to consult in the interrogation process. Dr. David Tornberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, argued the New England Journal of Medicine last January that, except for life-threatening circumstances, physicians outside the doctor-patient relationship had no obligation to offer medical aid to detainees. As a result, Tornberg asserted, mental health personnel could consult with military interrogators regarding all aspects of the interrogation process - advising on techniques and overseeing their practice - without violating ethical regulations.

The Martin-Baro Fund’s petition stresses that asking mental health professional to engage in what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees, is a violation of both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. ratified in 1994. The United States government has claimed that Geneva Convention rules do not apply to detainees in United States military facilities as they are not considered prisoners of war, but are stateless “enemy combatants” and terrorists. The petition endorses the adoption of both conventions as “a framework within which detainees in U.S. custody are held and interrogated.”

The petition demands that all government agencies, including military branches and outside contractors working for the government, no longer ask for or allow the participation of medical and mental health professionals in interrogation of political detainees. The petition calls for the passage of the McCain Amendment, which explicitly prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government. In recent days, the McCain amendment was indeed passed, although President Bush issued a signing statement clarifying his reading of the prohibition on torture.

In a separate petition directed to the APA, the Martin-Baro Fund asks that the association adopt international human rights standards into its Ethics Code. The petition also demands the APA’s immediate condemnation of the “ethically and morally repugnant” treatment of detainees in U.S. military compounds, calling for the commission of an independent nonpartisan investigation into allegations of the complicity of mental health professionals in torture of detainees.

Citing the concerns of groups such as Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PSR) and
the APA’s own Divisions for Social Justice, this petition reiterates the need for more protective policies for mental health professionals to eliminate ethical conflicts with governing legal authorities. Last October, PSR called for an independent, non-partisan investigation of the allegations of medical professionals’ complicity in torture in a letter to the APA President, Gerald P. Koocher, stating, “[i]n the absence of an independent investigation, there will remain an atmosphere of impunity that signals a lack of resolve to take our ethics code seriously.” The letter also implored the APA to openly condemn the abuses in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan and to educate policymakers regarding the lasting psychological damage inflicted by such methods, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.

A June 2005 report issued by the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security reaffirmed the organization’s opposition to torture and commitment to the APA Ethics Code. While stating it is consistent within the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to consult in interrogations and informationgathering processes, the report also stressed that “psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be alert to and report any such acts [of torture] to appropriate authorities.” Following the recommendations of the report, last summer the APA reaffirmed both the 1986 Council resolution supporting the U.N. Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the U.N. Principles of Medical Ethics.

Rhea Farberman, Director of Communications for the APA, emphasized that psychologists, regardless of situation, are always bound by the APA Ethics Code, citing the recent reaf?rmation of the organization’s “clear and unequivocal” stance against torture. Because the APA is not an investigative body, Farberman stated that it is not within the organization’s mandate to investigate specific claims of torture or the involvement of mental health professionals. However, she stressed, the organization does serve an adjudicatory role with an established process by which actions will be taken should evidence of wrongdoing be brought to the Ethics Committee’s attention. The organization is also very interested in studying applications of the APA Ethics Code to the national security arena.

To learn more about the petition drive of the Ignacio Martin-Baro Fund for Mental Health & Human Rights, visit their Web site at: http://www.martinbarofund.org/index.html