 |
Current Issue | Past
Issues | About the Report
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
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| |
