Search

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF), the focus of the January 2011 special issue of the "American Psychologist," is a $125 million resilience training initiative designed to reduce and prevent the adverse psychological consequences of combat for soldiers and veterans. These are worthy goals. Soldiers and veterans deserve the best care possible, and military psychologists have critically important roles to play. But the special issue is troubling in several important respects. Elsewhere, we have offered a detailed review. Here we offer only a summary of our concerns. The CSF program is a massive research project launched without pilot testing to determine, first, the effectiveness of the training in a military environment. This is highly irregular and obviously worrisome considering the stakes. No evidence was provided indicating that CSF received preliminary review by an independent ethics review board. There are other ethically fraught possibilities. This special issue reveals much about current moral challenges facing the profession of psychology.

We here respond to Staal's (2018) critique of the Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology. Staal proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems. We respond to Staal by providing (a) background to the Brookline Workshop, (b) a case of abuse by a Behavioral Science Consultant psychologist at Guantánamo, (c) perspectives-- ours and Staal's--on the ethics of operational psychology, (d) implications of the doctrine of civil--military relations, and (e) key considerations for ethics in operational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comments on Cushman’s “The Earthquake That Is the Hoffman Report on Torture,” placing the paper in the broader context of discussion of the ethics of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations and other military operations. In a preliminary discussion of the Hoffman Report, a few details that Cushman does not get quite right are pointed out. It then discusses the reasons for American Psychological Association leaders’ behavior in this episode and the mechanisms used to deflect attention from what was really happening. Broader issues regarding the appropriate ethical roles for psychologists in national security operations, or “operational psychology,” are then discussed. Along the way issues are raised regarding the appropriate Telos or goal of psychology as a profession and the distinction between science and scientism. While strongly defending science, Cushman’s call for a re-moralizing of psychology is endorsed. The paper ties it all together with a call for a Truth Commission to create a permanent record of the involvement of psychologists and health professionals with the national security state in the wake of 9/11 and to make sure that lessons are learned for future generations of psychologists and citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author urges doctors and professional medical associations to strengthen their ethical stances amid the alleged abuse of detainees in the war on terror at the Abu Ghraib prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Issues tackled are the alleged abusive interrogations and torture of prisoners in the presence of medical professionals. It outlines recommendations from the Institute of medicine as a Profession (IMAP)/Open Society Foundations allowing healthcare professionals to fulfill intelligence roles.