Psychologists need rights too
A hot topic among current psychologists, law enforcement and politicians alike is whether psychologists should be involved in interrogations of prisoner. While many psychologists, and the general public, believe that there should be a professional present, there are differing views as to why they should be there. In a Nature journal article in the Editorials section, one author vocalized that there should be a psychologist present to protect the detainee. A psychologist writing in a journal that is posted on Wiley.com states that there should be a psychologist present to “work to develop reliable noncoercive ways to get people to tell us about terrorist activity of which they have knowledge and are attempting to withhold” (Psychologists and Interrogations: What’s Torture Got to Do with It?). While these two articles both advocate for psychologists being in the room for interrogations, one argues for the protection of the prisoner and the other argues for the protection of American citizens.
The first article, “Responsible Interrogation,” states that, “psychologists have a moral duty to help prevent torture” and that the American Psychological Association’s first principle of twelve says that psychologists can be involved in interrogations (“Responsible Interrogation”). The author also mentions that there is no reliable evidence that proves that torture is more effective than any other way of interrogating a prisoner. The author believes that having a psychologist in the interrogation room, “…should serve as protection for detainees, provided the professional adheres to, and is held accountable to, the most fundamental medical ethic of all: 'do no harm’” (“Responsible Interrogation”).
Within the second article, “Psychologists and Interrogations: What’s Torture Got to Do with It?”), the author, Kirk M. Hubbard, vocalizes that, “it is one thing to ‘ban’ psychologists who are members of APA from engaging in torture, but quite another to prohibit them from consulting or advising during legal interrogations” (“Psychologists and Interrogations: What’s Torture Got to Do with It?”). The author believes that psychologists should not complain about the way interrogations are conducted because, “if we as a profession do not like the use of coercion to obtain actionable information, then we as a profession should be willing to step up to the plate and suggest reliable and effective alternatives that do not rely on psychological or physical coercion” (“Psychologists and Interrogations: What’s Torture Got to Do with It?”).
These articles both agree that psychologists play a major role in interrogations, especially in light of the accusations of what kind of torture has occurred at Guantanamo Bay. I believe that both articles are correct. Psychologists should be able to sit in and advise in interrogations, but should report abuse whether they are on the government’s payroll or not (“Psychologists and Interrogations: What’s Torture Got to Do with It?”). There should be a need and a want in the psychologist community to want to help reform interrogations so they are safer for the detainee and the government’s reputation.
The articles cited and used for the purposes of insight and information cannot be accessed unless an individual or party has a subscription to the journal Nature. Here are the citations for the used articles:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7245/full/459300a.html. Nature. 21 May 2009. Web. 20 May 2009.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00123.x/pdf. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2007. Web. 2007
______________________________________________________________
Feeder 1.2---9/27/10
Science of the future
In 1996, a lovely sheep was “born.” Dolly, the sheep, became the first animal to be cloned from an adult mammal. She was cloned from the mammary gland of an adult female sheep and lived until she was six. Seeing as this was a scientific leap, there were, and still are, many different viewpoints on whether cloning was ethical or not. In the article “Cloning Me, Cloning You: Reflections on the Ethics of Cloning for Individuals, Families and Society,” Alix Magney states that the comparable lists of pros and cons of cloning a human being are reasonable, ethical questions that are left up to the future generation to answer.
Within the paper, Magney outlines two pro-cloning arguments first. Scientists believe that cloning a human being is good, “based upon liberal ideal[s] of the exercise of free will and rational choice.”[1] She continues to say that people who ascribe to the liberal idea “argue that the right to access cloning is an expression of individual freedom.”[2] The other main argument that pro-clone scientists utilize is one that states cloning will bring about a “greater good.”[3] These two arguments focus heavily on what America was founded on: freedom and a greater good. America being founded on these ideals is important because the issue of whether cloning is ethical tends to be a battle fought using religious and/or political ideals to support the claim. Although the pro-clone side has strong arguments, the opposing side has strong arguments as well.
The opposing side of cloning most heavily relies upon the argument made by Immanuel Kant which says that, “individuals are ends in their own right not a means to an end.”[4] The second line of argumentation is one that coincides with Christian beliefs as well as many religious beliefs. People who oppose cloning tend to believe that cloning is, “abhorrent as it intervenes with the richness of God’s biological diversity, which also conflicts with the celebration of individual difference.”[5] These believers go on to accuse that, “the idea of predetermining a child’s genetic inheritance encourages tolerance of unprecedented medical risks and psychological hazards.”[6] Finally, within this three argument subgroup, anti-clone Christians say that, “cloning is an assault to individual worth as it engenders instrumental relations with others to achieve an end.”[7] The last main argument that cloning opposed people say is that if there was cloning, there would be the potential for someone to determine others fates. The cloner could weed out the “bad” characteristics or traits that are undesirable to a newer, better human race.
The author of the article, Alix Magney believes that, “if we can fulfill Levinas’s ethic of responsibility to the Other, then maybe we have the ethical grounds on which to permit cloning of human beings.”[8] Magney comes to the conclusion that cloning a human brings about the same issues as having a baby does now such as financial, emotional, and physical issues are a few examples.[9] While Magney explicitly states the reasons why and why not humans should be cloned, she is for cloning in the long run.
[1] Cloning Me, Cloning You: Reflections on the Ethics of Cloning for Individuals, Families and Society
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bentham
[4] Cloning Me, Cloning You: Reflections on the Ethics of Cloning for Individuals, Families and Society. Magney, Alix.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
______________________________________________________________
Unit Project 1---10/14/10
The Animal Collective
To want to test animals or not tends not to focus on the animals as much as it does on morals. Many authors take a firm stance because it directly conflicts with their personal morals. With a sticky issue such as animal testing, many people jump to the conclusion that it can be equated to animal torture. Most animals are not harmed in testing, in fact, according to http://www.animalport.com/animal-testing/animal-testing-facts-figures.html, “More than 2.5 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2000. This number has halved since the 1970s.” There are many laws regulating what researches can and cannot do to animals. Although there are all of these facts, authors, such as Fern Wickson, still believe animal testing is not practical. I believe that animal testing is a safe and productive way to conduct research because the animals are protected by law and the researchers, for the most part, follows those laws.
In Fern Wickson’s editorial article, “A Slippery Slope,” he delves into the idea that animal testing should be determined by “moral consensus, not by arbitrary decisions” (Wickson). However, Wickson does not provide logical evidence in order to support this claim. He starts his article by telling his audience about the Oklahoma State University president’s decision to stop “an anthrax-vaccine project that would have used the facilities because the baboon subjects involved would have been killed at the end of the study” (Wickson). Wickson continues to say that deciding to halt this project sets a “bad precedent” because decisions should be based on what people find morally acceptable and unacceptable. In order for this argument to make any logical sense; one must debunk the author’s words carefully, as well as Wickson’s thought process. She/he believes that one must always make a firm stance on what one believes about animal testing, and in the eyes of Wickson, that firm stance should be that it is morally wrong to test anything on animals.
Not in complete contrast to Fern Wickson’s article, another author, Dave Bienus, wrote an editorial article “Against Vicious Activism” which focuses on how the federal government should step in to regulate animal testing and activism. He firmly advocates for protests that do not harm anyone, but he is adamant about letting the public know that free to assembly is different than vandalism which is illegal (Bienus). Bienus goes on to say that the researchers need to respect the rights of the animals as well. Although there haven’t been many instances where a researcher has intentionally hurt an animal, there have been a few and the federal government needs to take action on cases like that (Beinus). The main argument that Bienus brings to light is that the government has many different departments that handle different types of animal research; he says they should all come together and be one group so they could have one large filing system and be more productive (Bienus).
My personal beliefs on the matter are that not much would get done without animals. Yes, while I acknowledge that some of the treatments on animals do not work on humans, we still need the animals for experimentation and evaluation on whether a drug has a chance of curing a disease or helping an ailment. There are varying numbers of what percentage of drug tests on animals actually work on humans, but I do not believe that is even a matter. If we did not have animals, we would not even have a chance at understanding what medications would work on us. A somewhat periphery argument to the pro-animal testing group is that many animals are bred for humans to eat. This particular point resonated with me because, although I am not a vegetarian, I know some of the horrors of the meat-packing and slaughterhouse industries. I do not agree with how animals are treated there, and while people are trying to start activist groups against that as well, animal research truly would benefit many people. As one person can refuse to eat meat because it was raised horribly or because it wasn’t fed the right food, one can refuse medicine that was tested on animals (although that would virtually be all medicine).
While the animals are not able to say whether or not they are used for experiments, if researchers treat them with respect and obey laws that prohibit laboratory misconduct, then perhaps protesters would not exist. I believe that it is a fact of life that the human race needs to use animals to test treatments that could be successful in humans. There needs to be consensus on what is appropriate for experiments which requires government interference and enforcement.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Feeder 2.1---11/1/10
Insight into Female Detainees’ Lives
Female prisoners are a fascinating population in the United States. Many psychological studies have been performed to get to know the females whom are incarcerated at a deeper level; stare into their lives and decide what led to their imprisonment. A review written by Thomas W. Haywood, Howard M. Kravitz, Laurie B. Goldman, and Anderson Freeman titled, “Characteristics of Women in Jail and Treatment Orientations” delves into the idea of a relationship between pre-jail time and the services provided for the detainees while incarcerated. Although many of the women in prison have mental disorders, many of them are not treated within the prison system.
In the review of other studies, all of the researchers concluded that there was a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and the women in jail. According to the authors, “…women in jail are a socioeconomically disadvantaged and culturally deprived group” (pg. 309). The reason provided for such a large number of women, about 75%, coming from a relatively low socioeconomic stand-point and ending up in jail is because of absent parents and or physical/sexual violence as a child which leads to drugs and mental disorders (pg. 309). A plethora of statistics were stated in the review of other studies performed, but two that stand out are that, “…female detainees are less likely to be incarcerated for violent offenses than males (13% vs. 24%) but are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses (34% vs. 22%)” (pg. 310). The report does not describe why this is, but I think that it could be from the inadvertent sexism of judges to assume that a woman could not commit a violent offense without a moral reason. These women prisoners have been heavily linked to drugs and adventurous sexual behavior right before their detainment. There is a direct correlation between drug use and risky sexual behavior because, “detained women who use drugs are particularly prone to high-risk behaviors relating to contracting HIV and being abused,” (pg. 312). As many people know, heavy drug use may lead to promiscuous behavior and, with pre-existing mental disorders, it could be a fatal mix. In another study cited within the review, “antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) (60%) and substance abuse (40%) were the most prevalent psychiatric disorders” (pg. 311). As demonstrated, many of the female prisoners deal with physical addiction and mental disorders that need to be treated immediately, or at least assessed to see the severity of the dependence or disorder.
The conclusions of this review found that most women detainees went into the prison system disadvantaged and were not properly aided while within the walls of the prison (pg. 321). Many of the medical services (such as a psychiatrist, an OBGYN, suicide prevention, etc.) were found to only be provided in a very small percentage of jails and an even smaller percentage of the women were given this treatment. The culmination of the examination of all of the previous studies on female detainees is that the authors believe, “More resources need to be directed toward comprehensive services and research into treatment effectiveness to stem the tide of the growing mental health and public health problems that account for the increasing criminal and psychiatric recidivism among female offenders,” (pg. 321). By examining these other experiments, the authors collectively decided that more research and funding needs to go into female prisoners.
The article used in this essay: Behav Modif. 2000 Jul;24(3):307-24. Characteristics of women in jail and treatment orientations. A review. Haywood TW, Kravitz HM, Goldman LB, Freeman A.
______________________________________________________________
Feeder 2.2---11/11/10
______________________________________________________________
Unit 2 Project---11/21/10
______________________________________________________________
Feeder 3.1---11/21/10
Barbara Kruger is a well-known, female artist who makes art that speaks for itself. Traditionally, she creates prints of old magazine pictures and superimposes text that is usually contradictory to the picture and charges the audience to think about consumerism in America. In an article called “Get the Message,” Morgan Falconer claims that, “…once Kruger appropriated the magazines, now the magazines appropriate Kruger,” (Get the Message). Falconer says that, although Kruger never wanted to sell anything, the artist has essentially sold out.
Although this article is short, the author touches on a lot of key points that ring true. Morgan Falconer examines the worth of Kruger’s prints. The most expensive one sold for $530,000 while the next most successful one sold for only $130,000 (Get the Message). A mere $130,000 may seem like not a lot to pay for a professional artist’s artwork, but, as one of Kruger’s projects, she created a Spectacolor board in Times Square in 1983 that read, “I'M NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING,” (Get the Message). Falconer believes this isn’t true because, without selling her artwork and such, she would not have become such a huge success or won the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement (Get the Message). While Kruger has a lot of projects going on at the moment, she is a very dedicated and generous artist. According to Simon Lee, of Sprüth Magers Lee, “[Kruger] works in a beautifully subversive way. And as far as I'm concerned she's one of the easiest artists I work with -- very gracious and non-combative,” (Get the Message).
Personally, I find Kruger’s work to be challenging, uplifting, and inspirational. Her work forces me to think about how I live my life. She may have “sold out,” but I think of it as we live in a capitalistic society and everyone has to make their money somehow. She found what she is passionate about, but passion doesn’t pay the bills. Barbara Kruger also sells, “…T-shirts to matchbooks, and she is currently involved in promoting Selfridges department store,” (Get the Message). She is making her artwork accessible to the audience at large who can’t buy her originals or even get to museums to see her original work. To me, that is what her true message was about. Not necessarily that, as a population, we are all materialistic, but that rather a charge to figure out how to make our consumerism more wide-spread and accepted.
All information used for this essay was taken from: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml;hwwilsonid=K43TYMF2GXV0NQA3DIMSFF4ADUNGIIV0
______________________________________________________________
Feeder 3.2---12/2/10
______________________________________________________________
Unit 3 Project---12/7/10
