Torturous acts

APS Declaration on Torture

The Australian Psychological Society, as a member of the International Union of Psychological Science, fully endorses the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1997.

The Australian Psychological Society regards all forms of torture, as defined in Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1997, as breaches of the Society’s Code of Ethics (2003) General Principle III Propriety.

DECLARATION

Psychologists shall at all times comply with the Society’s Code of Ethics.

Psychologists shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, in any situation, including armed conflict and civil strife.

Psychologists shall not provide any premises, instruments, substances or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment.

Psychologists shall not be present during any procedure in which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is used or threatened.

Psychologists must have complete professional independence in deciding upon the care of a person for whom they are responsible.

Despite the acclaim, the APS resolution could have made its statement stronger had they adopted the point made by Professor David Thomas from Auckland University's Medical Faculty. Professor Thomas’s comment was made during the Public Forum of the APS Annual Conference, where the public and APS members learned that a representative senior psychologist from the Australian military (who had been listed as a participant on the conference program) had his permission to participate in the Public Forum revoked by his Commanding Officer. This suggests that Australian military psychologists could be silenced and ethically compromised by their commanding officers.

As no US psychologist involved in detention centres or military prisons has spoken out against such practices, this indicated to the senior psychologists involved with the social action campaign in Australia that the resolution should have included the following two clauses to close this "loophole":

• The signing of any code of secrecy or any statement which forbids disclosure of such acts without the approval of a superior shall not be a defense in relation to participation in or being present in settings where torture is used. It is a psychologist’s ethical duty to disclose the planning and/or perpetration of torture, especially when it takes place in settings where psychologists are present.
• If the psychologist does not subsequently disclose that torture took place in a setting where he or she was present then this non-disclosure shall be taken as a breach of the Code of Ethics.

Furthermore, to avoid any debate as to the meaning of the phrase "cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures" as was done in the United States, Michael Otterman has suggested that the following clause be added to provide the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him or her temporarily or permanently of the use of all natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or their awareness of place and the passing of time.

• For purposes of this Resolution, the phrase "cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures" should be interpreted in keeping with the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Principle 7).

Other psychological professional bodies might consider including these additions to the APS Resolution in developing statements for their ethical guidelines. The matter will be brought forward to both the Australian Psychological Society and The International Congress of Psychology to be held in 2008 in Europe.