My understanding is that the PENS task force met and deliberated in one weekend (a very rushed process, no doubt). Their recommendations were then accepted into APA policy by the Board of Directors without going through typical channels, which would have involved a broader debate and a vote by a larger legislative body. According to reporting and interviews on the Democracynow.org news program, the Task Force also voted to prevent its members from taking notes on the deliberation. This was to ensure some degree of confidentiality for statements made by members during their discussions. The justification was that secrecy would prevent repercussions for the expression of unpopular views. This unusual level of secrecy and haste, coupled with the stacking of the Task Force with professionals affiliated with the military and CIA, appears suspicious. Those involved in instigating this unusual process should be questioned concerning the supposed necessity of such an uncommon set of circumstances. A flawed process often results in a flawed outcome. The moratorium on psychologists' participation in or consultation on interrogations should be enacted. We must have open debate and a more democratic process to ensure a more thoughtful outcome.

In an interview on Democracynow.org, the former president of the APA stated that no disciplinary action had been taken against any psychologist for participation in illegal or unethical methods of interrogation because the names of individual psychologists had not been offered to the APA. Well, names are now very much available. Potential violations must now be investigated in order to protect the integrity of our profession.

A previous letter mentioned the Hippocratic oath. Only medical doctors (Psychiatrists) take this oath. Psychologists and other types of psychotherapists do not take this oath.

Monk

The last half a dozen years have been extra ordinary in many ways... but we need to look no further than the work of Stanley Milgram to understand how our leaders, media pundits and their supporters could have wandered so far from the core values that this country should represent. Given license, authority has no limits.

I am a medical doctor, so I can only answer this question from my perspective, but: Every time I apply for a license renewal in my state, I have to answer the question, "Have you ever been refused membership in a medical or professional society?" The state medical board reviews every case of a doctor booted from a society. They do care. I think state psychology licensing boards would feel the same way. If a psychologist were kicked out of the APA, the licensing board would seriously review the reasons for the dismissal. If the APA is responsible, it would report any disciplinary actions it takes against its members to state licensing boards.

Further, I can tell you that on the medical side organizations like the AMA set professional standards of behavior. If a doctor were to end up in court, either criminal or civil, AMA standards of professionalism would likely apply to the case. When a court evaluates a doctor's behavior, it often uses the ethical standards of local professional societies as the basis of its judgment of appropriate behavior. This standard is considered the reasonable community standard that applies to all doctors. If the AMA says having sex with a patient is unethical, the doctor cannot defend himself by saying, "I am not in the AMA." In most states, state medical society standards are used in court as legal medical standards, and most state medical societies use AMA and other professional organization policy statments as their templates. Thus, much of what the AMA says about ethical behavior has some of the force of law.

I highly doubt that a psychologist applying for a license to practice would have an easy time of it if the APA had officially censured him. It's a small world in the health profession, and you can't step on toes and expect to get away with it.

And for the record: I do not think psychology is a pseudoscience. I have had many patients over the years who have benefitted from psychiatric counseling, and I will continue to refer patients to psychologists when I feel they need it. The problem is that we do not have enough psychologists, not that they are quacks.

There are licensing laws in every state and they have become more demanding in terms of training, credentials and continuing ed requirments (to mainatin licnese) over time. The state specific tests for psychologists have little to do with general knowledge and much to do with the interpretation of state laws and ethical principles which underly most state statutes regulating psychologists. The national exam (the first level of examination for psychologists) also is nnot based on general knowledge and requires knowledge in mathematically complex areas such as measurement and psychometrics.

There are limits on the scope of practice for psychologists (and other professions). APA is not a regulator but when people lose their membersjips (often because they've lost their licenses), it is publicized with the annual dues statement and does have impact on members. People with relevant knowledge can submit complaints regarding psychologists licensed in their state, which are taken seriously. In most states, verification of licenses, including any disciplinary actions are available on line for psychologists and other professions.

Dear sirs:

I spoke with my personal physician, the eminent Dr. Josef Mengele, and he disagreees with the viewpoints held in this letter. The good Doctor feels that moral clarity requires that when fighting pure evil, or even merely anyone we don't like, all methods are acceptable. One must get past such things as "ethics," or "human decency." They are outmoded - quaint, if you will - concepts that will hold back the advancement of the glorious cause. In fact, in this case, ethics may be considered treason.

I hope the APA understands this. I would be truly sorry if they did not, as their required re-education on the subject could be, well, less than pleasant, shall we say.

Very truly yours,

Adolf

There are actually fairly stringent standards for licensing psychologists. You need a doctoral degree from a fully qualified program (no small investment of time and money), and at least in my state you need 3000 hours of supervised experience (which usually adds up to several years of unpaid or extremely poor paying work), a very clear set of supplementary coursework, lifelong continuing education, and two major examinations that include a lot of subject matter on ethics. Licenses can be revoked by state boards of psychology for many reasons, much indeed as a bar association can revoke an attorney's qualification. It is true that standards vary state by state. The APA is not directly involved in this process but wields no small amount of influence, either.

And most of us are not, in fact, flying blind with our practices. The reason we get doctoral degrees to begin with is to learn about how to do empirical research and how to apply that research to practice. I'm sure there are some psychologists out there who still persist in selling snake oil. But a lot of us are very concerned to ground our work in good social science. It's a helluva trick applying scientific data to the individual circumstances of each person's complex life, but we don't go to graduate school for half a decade in order to just fly by the seat of our pants.