is the 2002 APA ethics code amendment permitting mental health professionals to be present for enhanced interrogation a morally defensible rule according to Mill’s utilitarian theory?

Read the case below and in an essay of 1000 – 1500 words
(4-6 pages double spaced) address the following question: is the 2002 APA
ethics code amendment permitting mental health professionals to be present for
enhanced interrogation a morally defensible rule according to Mill’s
utilitarian theory? In other words, is it morally right, per Mill’s
utilitarianism, that mental health professionals be involved in enhanced
interrogation?

Be sure to describe Mill’s utilitarian theory in detail,
using supporting quotes from Utilitarianism (and possibly other primary source
material) to emphasize main points. Explain the ultimate good at which moral
actions aim according to Mill, and the decision-making procedure offered by the
theory. Explain how the theory can be used to reach a decision about the moral
status of health-care professionals’ involvement in enhanced interrogation.

Summarize the main arguments presented by Mill in support of
his assertions about the good and how it may be obtained. An adequate summary
of these arguments is not simply a list of the conclusions Mill reaches.
Instead, an adequate summary consists in a description of the reasons Mill
gives and a discussion of the rationale he employs in support of his
conclusions, in addition to a brief discussion of the conclusions and their
meaning.

Lastly, reflect on your own moral sense and explain where
Mill’s theory offers a moral verdict that aligns with your commitments and
where the theory contradicts your commitments. Is utilitarianism attractive to
you as a theory of moral decision-making? Why or why not? What aspects of the
theory do you have reservations about, if any, and why?

Throughout your essay use relevant quotes from Mill’s
Utilitarianism to support key points, and cite your sources in MLA format.

NOTE: At least 80% of your essay should be devoted to
discussing Mill’s Utilitarianism, and no more than 20% should be allotted to
personal reflections on Mill’s theory.

Your submission should be free of all grammar and spelling
errors.

Your essay will be checked for plagiarism. If your essay or
any part of it is plagiarized, you will receive a zero for the assignment and
may face other disciplinary measures as appropriate.

CASE

After September 11, 2001, and the subsequent invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration initiated an aggressive program
of interrogating detainees. Some “enhanced” interrogation techniques struck
critics as inhuman treatment or torture. Methods included forced standing,
sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, waterboarding, and threat of harm from
dogs. In conducting such interrogations, interrogators sought the services of
psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors.

The Code of Medical Ethics, promulgated by the American
Medical Association and accepted by the American Psychiatric Association,
strictly forbids doctors to participate in any way with torture, since that
practice runs counter to the primary stricture to “do no harm.” In 1999, the
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs had issued Opinion E-2.067 (which still
applied), which says, in part, “[p]hysicians must oppose and must not
participate in torture for any reason. Participation in torture includes, but is
not limited to, providing or withholding any services, substances, or knowledge
to facilitate the practice of torture. Physicians must not be present when
torture is used or threatened.” Furthermore, “[p]hysicians may treat prisoners
or detainees if doing so is in [the prisoners’] best interest, but physicians
should not treat individuals to verify their health so that torture can begin
or continue.”

The Code of Ethics for the American Psychological
Association (APA) advises its members to seek to “safeguard the welfare and
rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected
persons.” Clearly, the values expressed in the code conflicted with the
requirements placed on psychologists by interrogators. To remedy this conflict,
in 2002, the APA amended section 1.02 of the Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct, entitled “Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or
Other Governing Legal Authority” to read, “[i]f psychologists’ ethical
responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and
take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is irresolvable via such
means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or
other governing legal authority.” Thus, the code permits psychologists to set
aside ethical considerations when these put them at odds with government or
military interrogators.

Critics of the new wording say that the APA has abandoned
the lessons learned during the Nuremberg Trials, particularly Principle IV, the
which states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government
or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Defenders of the new wording insist that if psychologists do
not attend interrogations they cannot influence or deter interrogators from
going too far. They point to the need for an independent party to oversee the
situation and perhaps act as an advocate for interest of the detainee.

In October, 2015, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of two
surviving detainees and the estate of a deceased third against two
psychologists, James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, who were allegedly
“contracted by the CIA to design, implement, and oversee the agency’s post-9/11
torture program.” According to the ACLU, the plaintiffs are suing Mitchell and
Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute for their commission of torture; cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment; nonconsensual human experimentation; and war
crimes.