Psychologists abandon the Nuremberg ethic: Concerns for detainee interrogations |
| |
| Authors: | Kenneth S Pope Thomas G Gutheil |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel;2. Consortia for Improving Medicine with Innovation and Technology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;3. Department of Neurology, Charles University, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic;4. Institute for Drug Research, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel;5. Department of EEG, Dutch Epilepsy Clinics Foundation (SEIN), Heemstede, The Netherlands;6. Masaryk University, Brno Epilepsy Center, St. Anne''s Hospital and School of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic;7. Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, St. Olav''s Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway;8. Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway;9. UCLA Neurology, Los Angeles, CA, USA;10. Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;11. Department of Paediatric Neurology, Charles University, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic;12. MINCEP Epilepsy Care, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA;13. Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy;14. Epilepsy Centre, University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany;15. Laboratory for the Study of Learning and Development, University of Bourgogne, Dijon, France;p. School of Psychology and Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK;q. Epilepsy Group, Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre, St. George''s Hospital, London, UK;r. National Centre for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Norway;s. Department of Neurology, University Hospital and Medical School of Geneva, Switzerland;t. Clinical Epilepsy Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA;u. Danish Epilepsy Centre Filadelfia, Dianalund, Denmark;v. Department of Clinical Medicine, Neurological Service, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil;w. University of Exeter Medical School, St. Luke''s Campus, Exeter, UK;x. Epilepsy Monitoring Unit, Dutch Epilepsy Clinics Foundation (SEIN), Heemstede, The Netherlands;y. Central European Institute of Technology (CEITEC), Brno, Czech Republic;z. College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA;11. Institute of Medical and Biomedical Sciences, St. George’s University of London, London, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | In the aftermath of 9-11, the American Psychological Association, one of the largest U.S. health professions, changed its ethics code so that it now runs counter to the Nuremberg Ethic. This historic post-9-11 change allows psychologists to set aside their ethical responsibilities whenever they are in irreconcilable conflict with military orders, governmental regulations, national and local laws, and other forms of governing legal authority. This article discusses the history, wording, rationale, and implications of the ethical standard that U.S. psychologists adopted 7 years ago, particularly in light of concerns over health care professionals' involvement in detainee interrogations and the controversy over psychologists' prominent involvement in settings like the Guantánamo Bay Detainment Camp and the Abu Ghraib prison. It discusses possible approaches to the complex dilemmas arising when ethical responsibilities conflict with laws, regulations, or other governing legal authority. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
