We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:39:35 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2010 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification [Denizen Psuedo-Intellectual, Semi-Socratic Commentary - Kat] Commenting last week, I noted a Law And Order episode where the psychiatrist's participation in developing an interrogation program had the Medical Examiner (also a physician) equating the psychiatrists to Dr. Mengele. In that episode, the psychiatrist had her license revoked. This is not a trumped up television theme nor is it necessarily restricted to psychiatry or the field of medicine as a whole. The idea of medicine at war, beyond treating the wounded or psychologically damaged victims, has been a fearful specter since the liberation of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Possibly even longer such... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:19:00 -0600 Some ethical issues are clear cut: To see POWs as a ready pool of lab rats is one of these. However the use of psychological methods as an altenative to waterboarding or sociometrics to dope out the command structure of a terrorist group are a grey area-is using one's professional knowledge to avoid doing immediate harm justified when the outcome may lead to later, if lesser, harm? Or is the immediate distress cause in a SERE simulation justified by the posability it will help the individual if they are captured-esp. when the intent is not protection but the furtherance of the military objective? I'll be damned if I know, I graduated from SERE and went to see the elephant long before I became a psychologist and, in retrospect, can see how the behavioral sciences influenced the training and the handling of prisoners. All I do know is the rules seemed simpler then. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66305 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66305 Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:50:25 -0600 Which is to say I'm thinking our power to change is outstripping our wisdom of change. That is an excellent point. Generally, I believe that our psychological resistance to change is a defense mechanism meant to insure that we don't make ourselves extinct by going beyond our intuitive limits. Kind of like the caveman who resists the urge to eat the new berries that might be poisonous or go kill a saber tooth tiger when the caveman only has a sharpened stick. I think that is what prompts our continuing conservative approach to social behavior and some sciences. But, it does bring up that question of what could happen if a caveman had created an automatic rifle while still dragging his knuckles around the cave.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66268 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66268 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:01:03 -0600 In my view our scientific development is well ahead of our philosophical development. Oh i know ppl like to talk philosophy between chardonnay swills but how much real advance has actually been made? Which is to say I'm thinking our power to change is outstripping our wisdom of change. Questions like the ones you pose may be beyond the structure of even our more functional societies. Look at disagreement which has lasted for so long on so many basics. Capitalism, communism, sexuality, religion, freedom, protection, war, class, race, abortion, birth control and so on. Those social sciences have already stepped into the muddy waters much the same as all the others. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66262 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/first_do_no_har.html#comment-66262 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:35:56 -0600