Thank you for the Monitor
I congratulate the APA Monitor on Psychology for its articles and observations. The January issue was an exemplar. APA President Anton's "Embracing change," and Chief Executive Officer Anderson's "Psychology's contributions to understanding immigration," each clearly presented the pertinent issues involved in their titular themes, gave us comprehensive updates.
The "Along for the ride" article on self-driving cars deserved merit for its impartial recounting of the positives and negatives of self-driving cars. Such cars embrace a wonderful future coupled with a dreadful nightmare.
Thank you for a well-rounded series of reports — all well-written — that update us readers concerning important developments in our professional world of pragmatic, social and research- oriented psychology.
Leo Shatin, PhD
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Conscience clause
As a graduate student in psychology, I often enjoyed discussions about ethical issues. As we learned about powerful and empirically supported interventions, we would often muse about Adolf Hitler. If he came to one of us complaining of insomnia and feelings of guilt would we try to help him overcome these problems?
Now, many years later, reading about the conscience clause controversy (April Monitor, "Competence vs. conscience") reminds me of those discussions about ethics for psychologists. What occurs to me is that the issue may be better understood in terms of competence rather than conscience. Regardless of the thoroughness of my training, I may never be competent to treat a current neo-Nazi, especially if many of my family died in the Holocaust. My strongly held beliefs and biases would undermine, either consciously or unconsciously, any attempt I might make to provide services in a competent manner. If I were a black psychologist whose grandfather was lynched by the KKK, would I be expected to treat effectively an officer of the KKK who presented with insomnia and feelings of guilt? I think not. I see it as perfectly legitimate to refuse to provide treatment based on my inability to be an effective provider of services under these circumstances. In fact, it would seem unethical to represent myself as competent and effective when I know I am not.
Of course, if I work in a clinic that primarily serves those whom I cannot effectively treat, it would make sense that the clinic would let me go. If I have negative beliefs or biases toward too many groups, there would likewise be no point in a graduate program's attempting to train me to be a well-rounded clinician.
John Rhead
Columbia, Maryland
Please send letters to Sara Martin, Monitor Editor. Letters should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for space and clarity.
