Psychologists’ responsibility to society: Public policy and the ethics of political action.

Abstract

In the United States, prohibitionist policies are used as the primary approach to combat the negative effect of substance use on society. An extensive academic literature spanning the disciplines of economics, political science, and multiculturalism documents the great social costs of the United States’ “War on Drugs” both nationally and internationally. These costs come with at best marginal effect on substance abuse and other crimes linked to the drug trade. In many cases, there is a reason to believe that these policies exacerbate the problems they aim to address. This article explores psychologists’ ethical commitments to social change concerning such drug policy, given the field of psychology’s expanding commitment to social justice. We examine arguments regarding the boundaries between psychologists’ personal and professional ethics with regard to political participation. Using drug prohibition as an exemplar, we suggest that many psychologists’ political actions and professional ethics may be misaligned. Ultimately, we conclude that the endorsement of prohibitionist drug policies is in direct conflict with the guiding ethical principles put forth by the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

When the political is professional: Civil disobedience in psychology.

“…That said, limiting the application of the Ethics Code to the workplace fails to account for psychologists’ actual and potential roles in social justice work. Indeed, Allen and Dodd (2018) argue that political action in our profession challenges artificial barriers between personal and professional activity, and thus, the Ethics Code should apply to politicized activities outside of psychologists’ workplaces. Examples of civil disobedience under this domain could include disrupting traffic during an unpermitted march or sheltering community members targeted by law enforcement (Finch & Barnes, 2020).…”

Sick and Shut In: Incarceration During a Public Health Crisis

“…Smart decarceration involves policy changes from an evidence-based transdisciplinary approach aimed at addressing the disparities in the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems and reducing incarceration while maximizing public safety and well-being (Epperson, 2017). As psychologists’ role and responsibilities expand to include more social justice advocacy, public policy, and political action (Allen & Dodd, 2018; Fox, 2008; Garrison et al, 2017), psychologists can take an active role in smart decarceration efforts.…”

Introduction to the special issue: Advocacy in public service settings.

“…However, there has been a relative dearth of attention paid specifically to advocacy within public service settings and on behalf of and in collaboration with individuals embedded in these contexts. Among psychologists working in public-sector settings (e.g., public hospitals, school systems, community service agencies), engagement in advocacy offers a vehicle for more effectively meeting the needs of the populations served, many of which are underserved and relatively high risk (Allen & Dodd, 2018; Ramírez Stege, Brockberg, & Hoyt, 2017). Although there are numerous barriers to routine and systematic participation in advocacy work (e.g., Cohen, Lee, & McIlwraith, 2012; Heinowitz et al, 2012; Staebler et al, 2017), the literature is replete with specific examples of efforts toward this end.…”