Assignment Question
Military psychology is a special branch of psychology whose psychological principles can be applied in the various subdivisions of military activities. The military psychologists work to enhance the lives of military officers and their families while away from home by giving clinical treatment (“A summary,” 2011). They may also offer support services to officers who are far from loved ones having been deployed to regions away from home, encountering foreign cultures and environments. In this task, the work of military psychologists will be tackled with a special emphasis on their role in the military interrogations subspecialty. Additionally, the main differences between the fields of military psychology and civilian psychology will be discussed.
The American Psychological Association (APA) supports the human rights of individuals such as prisoners of war, and is implementing the resolutions of its Council of Representatives to eliminate torture, along with other cruel and inhuman forms of treatment (APA, 2008). In a letter sent to the Bush administration urging them to change their interrogation policy, the APA gave a prohibition to its members from facilitating or participating in torturous interrogation practices (APA, 2008). An example of a place where the human rights of the detainees have been breached is at the naval base of the U.S at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and at CIA “black sites” all over the world. It also stated that testimonies obtained through such procedures should be discarded (APA, 2008).
According to the APA, the responsibility of the military psychologists at interrogation sites is to directly work for the detainees, independent human rights parties, and giving treatment to military officers (APA, 2008). The APA also adds that military psychologists may work as consultants for national security affiliated interrogations, but in a way that heeds to the Ethics Code (APA, 2008). The psychologists are also urged that when doing so, they should look out for the cases that require extra ethical consideration (“A summary,” 2011). The council has also provided ethical guidelines for its members with regard to interrogations. The APA’s ethics committee has engaged on obtaining casebook vignettes and commentaries to guide military psychologists to ensure that they oversee interrogations are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the recommendations of the international human rights instruments (APA, 2008).
Several differences exist between the fields of military and civilian psychology. One of the differences is in the aspect of confidentiality. The dual and multiple relationships characteristic of military psychology makes it different from any civilian form. In the military case, confidentiality is less favoured compared to the civilian one (Steve, 2007). In the military setting, military issues and national security are of more importance than the confidentiality in a physician-client relationship (Steve, 2007). When it comes to obtaining information, military authorities are not concerned with the ethical confidentiality issues (Steve, 2007).
Another difference is that in the military setting, the psychologist has power over the client, unlike in the civilian setting (Steve, 2007). Dual relationships in the military context develop from the situation of the military bases being at isolated places, the requirement that the mental health of an individual is reported to determine their suitability for work, or the possibility of a national security threat (Steve, 2007). The clause of “need to know,” combined with their uncommon power gives the military psychologist authority to determine an officer’s enlistment status (Steve, 2007). Unlike in the civilian setting, the knowledge that there is little or no privacy of the mental health records in the military setting makes the mental health service units in the military have reduced utilization (Steve, 2007).
In conclusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between what the requirements of the APA and the DOD with regard to the work of military psychologists. While the APA has high regard for the confidentiality of the client’s information, the DOD has no consideration for that especially if it involves the working ability of an officer, or issues of security. This puts the psychologists in a compromising situation. Therefore, the need for future collaboration between the APA and the DOD is of principle importance so as to enable the military psychologists work without conflicting issues.
References
A.P.A.(2008). APA Letter to Bush. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apa.org%2Fnews%2Fpress%2Freleases%2F2008%2F10%2Fbush-interrogations.aspx
A Summary of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. (2011). Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6ioHxQvndG0J:supportgenevaconventions.org/library/geneva_conventions_summary.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk
Steve, G. (2007). Multiple Relationships In Military Psychology. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.zurinstitute.com/dualmilitary.html
