Resolving Ethical Issues And Torture Controversy

I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

In the “Zimbaro Prison study” individuals were physically abused and mentally traumatized. In “The Monster study” children were embarrassed and their speech levels were negatively affected. However, at the time these experiments were conducted no ethical violations existed because there were no rules of ethics in place in regard to experiments. These early experiments shed light on a gruesome trajectory of research. In fact, these experiments influenced the 1953 guidelines of ethics that are still used today, to prevent these events from continuing.

Ethical dilemmas are one of the many sensitive issues that come with doing psychological research with human participants. As seen in several famous psychology studies such as the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, and Tuskegee experiment, ethics in psychological studies are important to protect both the individuals being subjected to research and the researcher. While these specific experiments did not include children, it does bring up an important conversation regarding ethics in research. There are several guidelines put in place by the American Psychological Association to protect humans during research. However, special considerations and guidelines are put into place when working with

The most ethical resolution for torture in interrogations is to allow it to only happen during certain times. Psychologists should develop a method where minimal risks of long term problems occur. I believe this is the most ethical way, because to protect national security we need information about terrorist attacks quickly. Additionally, America needs to be able to trust the source of the information. I also believe that the CIA should also perform back ground checks on the people being questioned to prevent the risk of hurting innocents. I believe that this will be justified, because we should protect the majority while taking the fewest causalities. We will need to obtain the information so there would be no further attacks and we could

Military psychologists have a major impact on their clients in the military regarding their career, benefits along with their working and living conditions along. Psychologists may be frequently distressed by requests to make dichotomous decisions about psychological fitness, security clearances, and deployment to isolated or high-risk environments (Johnson, 2008). Also, the topic of prisoners of war (POW) and psychologists being involved in interrogation procedures and going against the Geneva Convention along with APA standards due to their obligations to the military. After 9-11 or during the “war on terror” abusive interrogations and the line of confidentiality was frequently crossed by military psychologist due to what was entitled a political necessity.

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

The APA ethical guidelines help to ensure that all psychological research maintains the integrity that it does not do harm or conflicts with the majority of the human populations moral ethical codes. However, in some situations the APA ethical guidelines must be viewed as just that: guidelines. If a study has the potential to benefit humanity as a whole and does not result in the permanent or irreparable harm to a human being then some guidelines must be permitted to be stretched or even broken in the interest of human advancement and scientific progression. After all the goal and responsibility of a psychologist is to enhance our understanding of human behavior as well as to find ways to use this information to better society and humanity

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.

Throughout modern history, morals is questioned when torture is involved. Torture should be a black and white, yes or no question. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. In the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. To threaten to use torture is the same as actually torturing, both legally and morally. Should torture and the threat of torture be morally and legally acceptable, then in all levels involving local, state and federal systems should be able to use torture techniques.

In the mental health profession of counseling, therapy, psychology, psychiatric and social services ethical dilemmas are faced primarily on a daily basis. Being that mental health professionals are working with clients who are often fragile and vulnerable, they must develop an intense awareness of ethical issues. On the other hand, mental health professionals would never intentionally harm their clients, students or colleagues and others whom they work with. Unfortunately, good intentions are not enough to ensure that wrong doings will not occur and mental health professionals have no choice but to make ethically determined decisions. Depending upon the experience and expertise of the professional determines the outcome of the ethical

In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and white definition, the conditional “…other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions…” have led many to question what precisely this entails. In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture

The issue that seemed to be prominent in the area of mental illness and the idea of the “insanity plea” was related to the death penalty. There can be serious ethical dilemmas associated with evaluating these assessments for a professional psychologist. For example, the Ethics Code

To torture or not to torture is a very touchy subject. If the decision is based solely on utilitarianism view, there would be no question asked if torture was a good idea or not. This decision would most likely save lives based of the scenario given. This choice would gain the best benefit to U. S. people, no matter the consequences. If torture would have been an option, or maybe it was, prior to the 911 attack, then yes this would have been the last attempt to save lives. On the other hand, Kant’s duty-based ethic, might imply willingness torture as well if there is a thought that there is right motivation behind it, but on the other hand Kant says, “always treat persons as an ends not just as means” which is contradictory (Holms, pg. 63). A decision based on Virtue ethic would lead one to disagree with torture based the question asked, such as what kind of person

Throughout history the use of torture has been used to not only punish people for their crimes, but to extract information from them. According to historian Nancy Bilyeau, during the Tudor period in 16th century England, “For many prisoners, solitary confinement, repeated interrogation, and the threat of physical pain were enough to make them tell their tormentors anything they wanted to know” (Bilyeau, 2012). Following various events leading up to and including World War II, as well as subsequent conflicts around the world, the fight for human rights has been expanded. Today, torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) as, “…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally