...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Professional psychology: research and practice >Moving Upstream in the Post-Hoffman Era: When Ethical Responsibilities Conflict With the Law
【24h】

Moving Upstream in the Post-Hoffman Era: When Ethical Responsibilities Conflict With the Law

机译：移动的上游Post-Hoffman时代:当道德责任与法律的冲突

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

While the American Psychological Association (APA) has historically maintained the position that involvement in torture is prohibited (American Psychiatric Association & American Psychological Association, 1985),psychologists' alleged involvement in torture has been reported as far back as 2004 (Lewis, 2004) if not earlier. More recent claims against psychologists center on their alleged involvement in enhanced interrogations, namely the facilitation and promotion of such practices. Consequently, the APA Board of Directors launched an independent review, often referred to as the "Hoffman Report," to evaluate the allegations (Hoffman et al.,2015). The conclusions of the Hoffman Report reinforced the plights of military psychologists, among others, who risked facing disciplinary actions by courts-martial and APA when faced with legal-ethical conflicts. Those continuously facing legal-ethical conflicts in military and forensic settings drew attention to Standard 1.02, seeking unambiguous language that permitted them to resolve conflicts between law or governing authority and the Ethics Code. Accordingly, this article seeks to broadly examine how allegations were brought against psychologists through the context of Standard 1.02 revisions and through the Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) Task Force resolutions, particularly provided that APA has maintained its stance against torture (Okorodudu, Strickland, Van Hoorn, & Wiggins, 2007) and continuously promotes the aspirational duty of psychologists to protect the welfare of others (APA, 2010b). Recommendations on how to move forward are offered.
机译：在美国心理协会(APA)一直保持的位置吗参与(美国禁止酷刑精神病学协会和美国心理协会,1985年),所谓的心理学家”参与酷刑被报道为远2004年(刘易斯,2004)如果没有早些时候。最近心理学家中心索赔他们所谓的参与增强了审讯,即便利化推广这种做法。APA董事会发起了一项独立的审查,通常被称为“霍夫曼报告,“评估(霍夫曼等指控, 2015)。加强军事心理学家的困境,其中,有可能面临纪律行动了军事法庭的审判和APA当面对legal-ethical冲突。面对legal-ethical在军事和冲突法医设置关注的标准1.02,寻求明确的语言,允许的他们解决法律或之间的冲突管理权威和道德规范。因此,本文旨在广泛看看被提起指控心理学家通过标准的背景下1.02修订和心理道德和国家安全(笔)工作组决议,APA特别提供保持立场反对酷刑(Okorodudu斯特里克兰,Van Hoorn &•威金斯,2007)不断促进有抱负的责任心理学家为了保护他人的福利(APA 2010 b)。向前。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号