Do-no-harm ethics: A lighthouse amid dark waters: A reply to Harvey and Koocher's (2021) "Learning to paddle against the current: A commentary on Conrad's (2019) 'Moving upstream in the post-Hoffman era when ethical responsibilities conflict with the law'"

Authors Harvey and Koocher (2021) have published a rejoinder--"Learning to Paddle Against the Current: A Response to 'Moving Upstream in the Post-Hoffman Era: When Ethical Responsibilities Conflict With the Law'"--in which they assert that Conrad's (2019) article "overlooks important facts and documents, leading to uncritical repetition of unsupported conclusions" (Harvey and Koocher, 2021, p. 643). In this reply, we provide relevant background and review evidence regarding the key points raised, including controversy surrounding the American Psychological Association's (APA) Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS); developments in APA's policies relevant to United States (U.S.) war-on-terror detention and interrogation operations; the Hoffman Report, an APA-commissioned independent review that found serious fault with the response of APA leaders to reports of psychologist involvement in detainee abuse; and the history of APA's Ethical Standard 1.02. We conclude that not only policy reforms but also vigilance against backsliding will be necessary for APA to achieve a broad, ethics-focused reorientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]