Psychologists Abandon the Nuremberg Ethic: Concerns for Detainee Interrogations
For example, did a healthcare organization of over 148,000 members repeatedly endorsing over the years its participation in detainee interrogations, emphasizing the unique value of its competencies in this area, and offering public reassurances about those interrogations tend to encourage some in the public to believe that the methods used were necessary, ethical, unharmful, and effective, especially in light of the fact that psychologists played important roles in designing and providing training in some of these methods?
What is clear is that the American Psychological Association chose to adopt very different policies and issue very different public statements from the other major U.S. health care organizations, as the statement by Steven Sharfstein, American Psychiatric Association's 2005–2006 president, cited earlier, emphasized.
In the 7 years since the American Psychological Association adopted an ethics code that set aside the Nuremberg ethic, neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has followed its lead. Other major health care organizations have continued their leadership in the opposite direction, reminding their members and the world of the moral necessity of Nuremberg's fundamental ethic for health care professionals. The World Medical Association, for example, issued a press release underscoring this ethical responsibility: “At Nuremberg in 1947, accused physicians tried to defend themselves with the excuse that they were only following the law and commands from their superiors…. [T]he court announced that a physician could not deviate from his ethical obligations even if legislation demands otherwise” (World Medical Association, 2003).
Nuremberg's message that ethical responsibilities and accountability are indispensable came at such great price, it should not be forgotten or set aside lightly.
