Apparently some psychologists in the American Psychological Association have some ethical limits on what they will do. They will soon have a vote
Last summer an attempt by APA dissidents at a Moratorium on psychologist participation in interrogations at US Detention facilities was defeated at the Convention through a combination of parliamentary maneuvering and Council vote. Proponents of change have since regrouped and adopted a variety of new tactics. One was to utilize a never-before-used provision in the APA rules allowing for a referendum to be adopted by vote of the membership.
A referendum to remove psychologists from sites in violation of international law was proposed and was signed by the requisite 1one percent of the membership.
The resolution says:
Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.
I am wondering whether the psychologists are ever going to repudiate their participation in taking away the constitutional rights of parents. Child custody evaluators do that all the time, and they are doing it to innocent American citizens.
Post a Comment