Report finds that psychologists shielded U.S. torture program. How was this not a serious breach of medical ethics?

MSgt Ronald Stacy - Master Sergeant; And sometimes it is even the right thing to do.

However, in this case, there isn't even a hint of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" - what there is is an admission of failure to behave in accordance with the guidelines which were - even then - in place.

In this case - where the American Psychological Association's Dr. Nadine Kaslow (chair of the Independent Review’s Special Committee) has said “Our internal checks and balances failed to detect the collusion, or properly acknowledge a significant conflict of interest, nor did they provide meaningful field guidance for psychologists ... The organization’s intent was not to enable abusive interrogation techniques or contribute to violations of human rights, but that may have been the result." - it looks remarkably like the CIA went "shopping" for a "psychological opinion" that said it was "psychologically OK" for the CIA to do what it wanted to do (and did so because the psychologists most closely associated with the CIA's activities were telling the CIA that it was NOT OK to do what the CIA wanted to do) and found someone who was perfectly willing to ignore the professional standards and sell them one.

At no place in the report did it say that any of the "accepted professional treatment standards" had been changed retroactively or even that "if the CIA were to ask the APA now what they asked then, an unbiased and professional psychologist would have given a different answer today than they would have given then - even though the standards and guidelines have not changed at all".

I agree with you COL Ted Mc --- there is a definite need for some "Monday morning quarterbacking" in this case!

Folks i'm not saying it was right or wrong....but it was an end to means at the time that probably saved countless US lives.......let the dice fall where they may....but none of us were in the room when the decisions had to be made....i'm sure the folks that put their stamp of approval on policies and procedures only had the best of intentions for their people and their country. Everyone in leadership has had to make tough decisions at times....and most us have probably sat back afterward and wonders if we were right or if there was going to be any ramifications of our decisions. I have no issue with decisions being made but I will agree that hiding behind policy and not being transparent was wrong.

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad & MSgt Ronald Stacy - Gentlemen; the pragmatic difference between "good tactics" and "bad tactics" is that "good tactics" actually produces the desired results while "bad tactics" doesn't.

However, when looking at if a set of tactics "actually produces the desired results" you have to consider ALL of the results which that set of tactics produced.

IF "torturing prisoners" obtained currently actionable intelligence which actually resulted in the long-term reduction of the number of "friendly" casualties WITHOUT impairing the ability of "our side" to function successfully in global society then it is "good tactics". IF IT DOESN'T, then it is "bad tactics" EVEN IF it produces currently actionable intelligence which actually resulted in the long-term reduction of the number of "friendly" casualties.

The historical studies have shown that "befriending" captives is a MUCH more productive way of obtaining useful information from them than "torturing" them is. (It also has the advantage that it doesn't embitter someone who was "inappropriately detained" in the first place and convert them into an active supporter of "the other guys" when they were (originally), at best, passive non-opponents prior to being subjected to "coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources techniques" (read as "beating the crap out of them until they tell us whatever it is we have convinced them it is that we want them to tell us in order to get us to stop the beatings").

Behaving unprofessionally for money always is.

I absolutely agree COL Ted Mc. It is a shame there are so many examples throughout history of professionals compromising their values and ethical obligations to their profession for what the believed was the right thing at the time.

CW3 (Join to see) - Chief Warrant; I'm not all that concerned about "ethical obligations to their profession" - I have NEVER had any "ethical obligations" to my PROFESSION, only to myself.

However, in line with my ethical obligations to myself I signed on to a profession with an expected code of conduct and that means that I have an obligation to honour that code of conduct and not pervert it for personal gain.

People who "sell" their "professional opinion" to the highest bidder are, in my eyes, despicable.

I also have some quibbles over what, exactly, it was that they considered to be "the right thing". Was it the program, or was it providing a justification for a program that they knew was wrong but the revealing of which could create further damage, or was it providing retroactive cover for a program which had already been revealed in an attempt to limited the damage that "our guys" were doing to "our cause" by running a program which directly contradicted "our values" while "we" were attempting to prove to "them" that "our values" and "our cause" was the morally superior one?