Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm."

uh, hello...? while it may not be the exact wording from the hippocratic oath...

The origin of the phrase is uncertain. The Hippocratic Oath includes the promise "to abstain from doing harm" ... but not the precise phrase. Perhaps the closest approximation in the Hippocratic Corpus is in Epidemics: "The physician must...have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm"

regardless, it's a fundamental principle of health care providers, a principle that seems to have been summarily tossed aside by these two characters...

from raw story...

There's an article in today's New York Times about Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, two military retirees and psychologists with no expertise on al-Qaeda, no foreign language skills, no experience in real interrogations, and with no relevant degrees ("...their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure and family therapy").

Nevertheless, these two seemingly managed to cash in on America's "global war on terror."

With little more than their psychology credentials and "an intimate knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists," the pair, known as "Doc Mitchell" and "Doc Jessen" built "a thriving business that made millions of dollars selling interrogation and training services to the CIA," per the Times piece.

The article details the torture and interrogation of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah, described at the time as al-Qaeda's No. 3, by Doc Mitchell and Doc Jessen:

In late July 2002, Dr. Jessen joined [Dr. Mitchell] in Thailand. On Aug. 1, the Justice Department completed a formal legal opinion authorizing the SERE methods, and the psychologists turned up the pressure. Over about two weeks, Mr. Zubaydah was confined in a box, slammed into the wall and waterboarded 83 times.

The brutal treatment stopped only after Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen themselves decided that Mr. Zubaydah had no more information to give up. Higher-ups from headquarters arrived and watched one more waterboarding before agreeing that the treatment could stop, according to a Justice Department legal opinion.

while we're engaged as a nation in the great debate over the future of our health care, it would be wise to keep in mind just how steeped in venality some of our health care providers have become...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

waking in time?

wow, C&L really scored finding this video:

From
Children of the Future
by Wilhelm Reich 1928-1951

...It is impossible to have healthy children growing up in a sick environment. It means, furthermore, that under no circumstances can we expect to jump suddenly from a sick past into a healthy future. It will take several generations of newborn infants growing up under ever-widening horizon of knowledge of the child's true nature before the first signs of the Children of the Future begin to appear.

It is not the inborn nature of the child that constitutes the difficulty. The trouble lies in the thinking and acting of the majority of educators, parents, and physicians. It lies in the maze of wrong opinions which have nothing to do with the child. It lies in the fact that, at present, social interest, as represented by the newspapers, magazines, ... etc., with very few exceptions, is completely centered on diplomatic maneuvering and not on our single most important hope: the child.

We have learned that instead of a jump into the realm of the Children of the Future, we can hope for no more than a steady advance, in which the healthy new overlaps the sick old structure, with the new slowly outgrowing the old."

from the Baltimore Sun:

FBI: No delay in hate-crimes data to wait out protest

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued its hate-crimes report this morning, a document which indicated a nearly eight percent increase in 2006 in such crimes compared with the year before, more than a few suspicions were aroused.

Why did the agency wait until the Monday morning of Thanksgiving week to issue the report and not do it last week when Congress was still in town, as were thousands of mostly African American marchers led by Rev. Al Sharpton marched around the Justice Department to demand more federal action against hate crimes?

Was the FBI trying to keep from further riling up the demonstrators who visited Washington on Friday to express their anger at the Jena 6 and other racial incidents?

Absolutely not, said FBI spokesman John Miller."

But just as psychologists have been implicated in human rights abuse by outright shilling for the government and doing things like driving BSCT Teams in interrogations and then neglect to include their own sins in the new DSM-V -- The FBI is itself a source and engine and vector of strife and hate, itself driving us headlong right towards the end-of-the-world. Physician heal thyself? The FBI cannot even seem to comprehend its own role in fanning hate and intolerance and in rapidly destroying mankind's fragile future. The FBI's own lead role is hardly included within its own report. Go figure.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

typical lawmakers do harm

Here's how Tom Delay ran this like the lawmakers' grandstanding over Terri Schiavo:

H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 12, 1999
Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. PITTS, and Mr. WELDON of Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children.
Whereas children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God;
Whereas the spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of children is their sacred duty;
Whereas parents have the right to expect government to refrain from interfering with them in fulfilling their sacred duty and to render necessary assistance;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has held that parents `who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility' (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968));
Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival and society than our children;
Whereas it is the obligation of all public policymakers not only to support but also to defend the health and rights of parents, families, and children;
Whereas information endangering children is being made public and, in some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility through release under professional titles or through professional organizations;
Whereas elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society;
Whereas Congress has made sexual molestation and exploitation of children a felony;
Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse as criminal and harmful to children;
Whereas the American Psychological Association has recently published a severely flawed study that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for `willing' children;
Whereas `Paidika--the Journal of Pedophilia', a publication advocating the legalization of sex with `willing' children, has published an article by one of the authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D. (see `Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective', Issue 5); and
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has recognized that `sexually exploited children are unable to develop healthy, affectionate relationships in later life, have sexual dysfunction, and have a tendency to become sexual abusers as adults' (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759, n.10 (1982)): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress condemns and denounces all suggestions in the study recently published by the American Psychological Association that indicates sexual relationships between adults and `willing' children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for `willing' children;
(2) Congress urges the President to likewise reject and condemn, in the strongest terms possible, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults--regardless of the child's frame of mind--are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law; and
(3) the Congress encourages competent investigations to continue to research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology so that the public and public policymakers may act upon accurate information.

The bottom line is clear to understand: The system is by far, causing the harm, not the sexual activity. The lawmakers have done the bulk of this damage.

Primum non nocere. "First, do no harm." It reminds a physician to consider the possible harm that may result from intervention. Iatrogenics is "Doctor induced illness". These laws are clearly a case of legislators doing heinous harm.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

the findings are clear

Now some peer review:

Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman:
Politically Incorrect - Scientifically Correct

-- Thomas D. Oellerich --

Introduction

The response to the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) study was surprising. But the response of the American Psychological Association (APA) was, to say the least, startling and distressing. Rather than responding to the outcry provoked by this study with a discussion of the right of and importance for scientists to publish unpopular findings, the APA chose to distance itself from the study. This distancing included the assertion that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes serious harm and that "such activity should never be considered harmless ...'(American Psychological Association,' 1999; emphasis in the original). Additionally, the statement ignored the recommendation of Rind et al. to differentiate abusive sexual behavior from the non-abusive.

This paper addresses these two issues. First, it asserts that the idea that adult/nonadult sexual behavior 'should never be considered harmless' is not based on the evidence. Second, it supports the importance of differentiating abusive and nonabusive adult/nonadult sexual behavior both in the research and practice arenas. Additionally, this paper explains why a professional organization, such as the APA, would distance itself from the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman's report. Lastly, it makes recommendations with respect to responding to the problem of adult/nonadult sexual behavior.


The issues

First, the blanket statement that the sexual abuse of children is harmful to its victims is false. And its falsity has been attested to since the 'discovery of child sexual abuse.' For example, in 1975, David Walters identified as one of the major myths surrounding CSA was that it caused lasting psychological harm. He asserted that what harm may be experienced by the child was due to factors extrinsic to the sexual abuse itself:

Most of the psychological damage, if any, stems not from the abuse but from the interpretation of the abuse and the handling of the situation by parents, medical personnel, law enforcement and school officials, and social workers (p.'113).

Four years later, Finkelhor (1979) proposed an ethical justification for prohibiting adult/child (defined as a prepubertal youngster) sexual behavior. The reason for using an ethical justification was that the justification based on psychological harm lacked cogency. According to Finkelhor, it was empirically weak since 'it is possible that a majority of these children are not harmed'(p.693).

More recently, the Past President of the APA, Martin Seligman (1994), argued that the case for CSA being a 'special destroyer of adult mental health' (p.'232) was far from proven. The existing research indicating harm, according to him,'abandoned methodological niceties'(p.233). These studies were characterized by sampling bias, lack of adequate control groups, and a failure to consider alternative explanations for the findings. He wrote:'Once the ideology is stripped away, we still remain ignorant about whether sexual abuse in childhood wreaks damage in adult life and, if so, how much'(p.234).

Of significance is the fact that the weight of the evidence, when objectively considered, has supported the notion that CSA is neither necessarily nor typically harmful. For example, Constantine (1981) reviewed 30 studies. He found that

20 report at least some subjects without ill effects;'13 of those conclude that, for the majority of subjects, there is essentially no harm; and six even identify some subjects for whom, by self-evaluation or other criteria, the childhood sexual encounter was a positive or possibly beneficial experience (p.'224).

In his review of 25 studies, Conte (1985), taking issue with Constantine's using the research 'to make a case for 'legitimate instances of child-adult sex', concluded that 'a review of the literature describing the effects of sexual abuse on children leads irrefutably to the ambiguous conclusion that sexual abuse appears to affect some victims and not others'(p.'117).

Similarly, Browne and Finkelhor (1986) reviewed 28 studies. They found that among adults who had experienced CSA less than 20 percent evidenced serious psychopathology. They noted with concern the efforts of child advocates to exaggerate the harmful effects for political purposes because of its potential to harm the victims and their families:

Advocates [should] not exaggerate or overstate the intensity or inevitability of [negative] consequences [because] victims and their families [...] may be further victimized by exaggerated claims about the effects of sexual abuse (p.'178).

Kendall-Tackett, Williams, and Finkelhor (1993) reviewed 45 studies. They found that up to 49 percent of the sexually abused children suffered no psychological harm. They concluded that a lack of symptoms could not be used to rule out sexual abuse since 'there are too many sexually abused children who are apparently asymptomatic' (p.'175). Further, among the children who were symptomatic, symptom abatement occurred for most within two years with or without treatment. These authors also found that when sexually abused children in treatment were compared with nonabused children in treatment, the sexually abused were less symptomatic than their nonabused clinical counterparts (p.'165).

In 1997, Rind and Tromovitch conducted a meta-analytic review of seven studies on the effects of child sexual abuse. Unlike prior reviews which were based primarily on clinical samples, this review involved studies that used national probability samples: four were from the United States, and one each, from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. The findings indicated that child sexual abuse 'is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense' (p.'237). The findings of Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman, which caused the recent maelstrom, simply confirmed this earlier study.

Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that CSA has any influence upon the adult personality. For example, Beitchman, Zucker, Hood, DaCosta, Akman, and Cassavia (1992) reviewed 32 studies. They concluded that the evidence suggested that CSA has serious long-term effects, but that it was not clear to what extent these effects were due to CSA per se (p.'115). Levitt and Pinnell (1995) concluded, based on their review of the literature, that 'the traditionally accepted link between childhood sexual abuse as an isolated cause and psychopathology in adulthood lacks empirical verification'(p.151). The Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman study(1998) indicated that CSA is non-causative. They reported that CSA-adjustment relations became nonsignificant when family environment was controlled for. Indeed, the evidence tends to confirm Seligman's earlier conclusion that

the case for childhood trauma - in anything but its most brutal form - influencing adult personality is in the minds of the inner-child advocates. It is not to be found in the data (p.'235).

Thus, contrary to the APA's assertion that CSA should never be considered harmless, quite the opposite is the case. That is, the empirical evidence gives no reason to consider CSA as necessarily or even usually harmful.

Second, based on their findings, Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman made the important recommendation that the scientific community use more neutral terms to study the phenomena of adult-child and adult-adolescent sexual behavior. In their view, abusive sexual behavior would be reserved to situations involving an unwanted sexual encounter with negative reactions. Those situations involving a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex or adult-adolescent sex (p.'46). One might wish to further refine this recommendation (e.g., abuse should be defined when the child/adolescent is unwilling regardless of whether their action was negative or not).

Similarly, Browne and Finkelhor (1986) reviewed 28 studies. They found that among adults who had experienced CSA less than 20 percent evidenced serious psychopathology. They noted with concern the efforts of child advocates to exaggerate the harmful effects for political purposes because of its potential to harm the victims and their families:

advocates [should] not exaggerate or overstate the intensity or inevitability of [negative] consequences [because] victims and their families [...] may be further victimized by exaggerated claims about the effects of sexual abuse (p. 178).

[...]

But there is an additional reason - money. As noted by Dineen (1999), the psychology industry (which she defined broadly to include psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, clinical social workers and psychotherapists) needs victims to justify the expansion of its domain and, thus, it "manufactures victims." A similar point was made earlier by Tavris (1993) with respect to the incest-survivor recovery movement. CSA is a problem widely exploited by professionals according to Costin, Karger, and Stoesz (1996):

the rediscovery of child abuse by the middle class has also led to the growth of a child abuse industry composed of opportunistic psychotherapists and aggressive attorneys who have prospered from child sexual abuse, exploiting adults who have evidence of having been abused and encouraging memory recall from those who haven't. ... Clearly, the psychological paradigm of child abuse has been a godsend ... for mental health professionals looking for new diseases. Unfortunately, one of the casualties of this new industry has been adult victims, who risk being victimized yet again, this time by a child abuse industry seeking out new forms of economic growth. ...

... Ironically, a public that is sympathetic to the plight of abused and neglected children fails to understand that it foots much of the bill for an out-of-control and demand-driven legal and psychotherapy industry.... (p. 7)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sensationalization

OK, here's the wire service reporting that helped fuel the controversy:

Political storm swirls over psychology journal article on child sex 'abuse'
By Erica Goode, NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE, June 24,'1999

Few people took notice last July when Psychological Bulletin, an academic psychology journal, carried a lengthy, jargon-heavy report titled 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.'

Nearly a year later, the study, its authors and the American Psychological Association, which publishes the journal, are at the center of a political storm.

The study concludes that the effects of sexual abuse on children are not always severe. Conservatives such as radio talk-show host Laura Schlessinger and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have declared that the study trivializes the impact of such abuse and condones pedophilia.

Janet Parshall, a spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, a fund-raising organization for social conservative causes, said the article 'gives pedophiles a green flag.' Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., introduced a resolution in Congress in May condemning the article.

The researchers also questioned the practice, common in many studies, of lumping all types of sexual abuse together. They argued that treating all forms of sexual abuse equally presents problems that, the researchers wrote,''are perhaps most apparent when contrasting cases such as the repeated rape of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult.'

In the first case, serious harm may result, Rind and his colleagues maintained, but the second case "may represent only a violation of social norms with no implication for personal harm.'

The authors also suggested that the term 'adult-adolescent sex' or 'adult-child sex' be substituted, in some cases, for 'child sexual abuse.'

Rind, in a statement released by Temple University, said:

'Our article went through rigorous peer review in one of the most difficult journals in psychology to publish in. Even though our study has been criticized by certain persons in the media, many psychologists at academic institutions have praised it as being excellent work.'"

Hey, they've got to sell newspapers.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Psychologists: present at the interrogation

i posted on last week's american psychological association here and here...

evidently, their resolution has a loophole, and some folks - myself included - aren't too happy about it...

Central to the debate is the question "Are psychologists participating in torture?" While the Bush administration repeatedly denies that it uses torture, a leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross says certain U.S. methods used are "tantamount to torture."

At a fiery APA town hall meeting after the vote, Dr. Steven Reisner, one of the leading proponents of a moratorium, asked, "I want to know if passing this resolution prohibits psychologists from being involved in the enhanced interrogation techniques that the president of the United States authorized can take place at CIA black sites."

Defenders of the APA's position are clear: Psychologists need to be present at these interrogations to protect the prisoners, to ensure that the interrogators do not go over the line. Critics argue that psychologists are there to help interrogators push the line further and further, to consult with the interrogators on how best to break the prisoners.

Dr. Jeffrey Kaye, a psychologist with Survivors International, a torture survivors group, says there is a loophole: Psychologists cannot participate in harsh interrogations, but they can participate in harsh detention conditions. He said: "You see, they don't use sleep deprivation while they're interrogating you, they use it before they interrogate you, as part of the conditions of detention, to soften you up for the interrogation. So the winner today, and I'm sure their lawyers are very happy, is the CIA."

loophole-free, here's some folks who have their shit together...

The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association both outright prohibit their members from participating in interrogations at locations where basic human rights are not guaranteed, like Guantanamo. These groups have been joined by others, like the American Translators Association and the Society for Ethnomusicology (since translation is essential in interrogations, and sustained, blaring music has been used as a form of torture).

it seems to me that avoiding even the mere POSSIBILITY of appearing to support torture would be of the highest priority... the american medical association (see their policy here) and the american psychiatric association (see their policy here - pdf) obviously get it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Good on the APA

this should have happened years ago...

The American Psychological Association ruled Sunday that psychologists can no longer be associated with several interrogation techniques that have been used against terrorism detainees at U.S. facilities because the methods are immoral, psychologically damaging and counterproductive in eliciting useful information.

Psychologists who witness interrogators using mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation are required to intervene to stop such abuse, to report the activities to superiors and to report the involvement of any other psychologists in such activities to the association. It could then strip those professionals of their membership.

The move by the APA, the nation's largest association of behavioral experts, is a rebuke of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

the essence of the hippocratic oath, often abbreviated to "above all, do no harm," an oath commonly taken by medical doctors, should apply equally to those who are trained to be guardians and healers of mental health...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Has the APA seen the light?

so, how long has it been since torture was "outed" as a u.s. interrogation practice...? visibly, publicly...? since 2003 at least...

The American Psychological Association, the world's largest professional organization of psychologists, is poised to issue a formal condemnation of a raft of notorious interrogation tactics employed by U.S. authorities against detainees during the so-called war on terror, from simulated drowning to sensory deprivation. The move is expected during the APA's annual convention in San Francisco this weekend.

The APA's anti-torture resolution follows a string of revelations in recent months of the key role played by psychologists in the development of brutal interrogation regimes for the CIA and the military. And it comes just weeks after news that the White House may be calling on psychologists once again: On July 20, President Bush signed an executive order restarting a coercive CIA interrogation program at the agency's "black sites." Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has indicated that psychological techniques will be part of the revamped program, but that the interrogations would be subject to careful medical oversight. That oversight is likely to be performed by psychologists.

this is long overdue… the apa has lagged behind their colleagues at the ama in condemning the practice of government using its members to craft more effective “enhanced interrogation techniques…” the apa should be ashamed that it’s taken them this long to take a stand…

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments