Online research in philosophy

In recent years, ethical concerns have emerged among psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians about interrogating inmates detained at U.S. military prison camps, such as Guantanamo Bay, or consulting on such interrogations. These concerns have escalated to levels necessitating the three major associations—the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association—to formulate position statements on these issues. Within the psychological community, two divergent schools of thought have developed, and this article explores the role of psychologists in these types of interrogations and the related ethical concerns. Specifically, this article provides an overview of psychologists' roles in this area, presents an analysis of the ethical guidelines, discusses the implications of the American Psychological Association's position statement, and offers suggestions to reconcile the current ethical debate.

Confidentiality is a core value in medicine and public health yet, like other core values, it is not absolute. Medical ethics has typically allowed for breaches of confidentiality when there is a credible threat of significant harm to an identifiable third party. Medical ethics has been less explicit in spelling out criteria for allowing breaches of confidentiality to protect populations, instead tending to defer these decisions to the law. But recently, issues in military detention settings have raised the profile of decisions to breach medical confidentiality in efforts to protect the broader population. National and international ethics documents say little about the confidentiality of detainee medical records. But initial decisions to use detainee medical records to help craft coercive interrogations led to widespread condemnation, and might have contributed to detainee health problems, such as a large number of suicide attempts several of which have been successful. More recent military guidance seems to reflect lessons learned from these problems and does more to protect detainee records. For the public health system, this experience is a reminder of the importance of confidentiality in creating trustworthy, and effective, means to protect the public's health.

* Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author's own. This article should not be construed as representing policies of the American Medical Association.

*The views represented are the author's alone and should not be construed as representing policies of the American Medical Association.

*The views in this article are the author's alone and should not be construed as policy statements of the American Medical Association.

Critics have persistently charged that indirect consequentialism, despite the best efforts of its defenders, ultimately fails to appropriately account for friendship in the face of the alienation generated by the harsh demands of consequentialism. Robert F. Card has recently alleged that the dispositional emphasis of indirect consequentialism renders its defender incapable of rejecting problematic friendships that are seriously suboptimal. I argue that Card's criticism not only fails to undermine indirect consequentialism, but in fact provides considerations that both help us to better understand the theory and ultimately weigh in favor of it over Card's own brand of sophisticated consequentialism.