Do No Harm
“Do no harm” is the most famous phrase of the Hippocratic Oath, a statement of medical ethics written by physicians in the school of Hippocrates (the so-called Father of Medicine) in Greece around 400 bce: “I will use regimens for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and judgment, but from what is to their harm or injustice I will keep them.” The awareness of the ancient oath that healing professions carry responsibilities for competent use of their particular knowledge, that the work itself carries dangers of doing unintentional harm, being unjust, exploiting clients, and conferring special skills that can be used for deliberate cruelty, make its principles relevant to settings where peace psychologists may have key roles. Education, law, government, unions, the military, business administration, and other professional enterprises all consult with psychologists at times on issues of ethics, conflict, and outside pressures to reform. Some employ psychologists for assistance to employees (e.g., the military) or clients (e.g., education) and also turn to them for help when destructive conflicts arise. 
 
 
Keywords: 
 
professional ethics; 
medical ethics; 
do no harm
Ethical Objectives and Values in Peace Psychology and Social Justice Research
Ethical standards in research with human participants typically include informed consent and avoidance of physical or emotional harm. In the field of peace psychology and related social justice research, the standard of “do no harm” may need to be extended. The values of our field include going beyond the standards for integrity in methods and customary protections of human subjects and move into the obligation for our research to make an actual contribution to limit the many forms of violence and injustice that are faced by the human family. With this higher standard we set the bar to include the actual voices of those who experience violence, an examination of the power relationships that perpetuate structural violence, and a reflection on how sponsorship of research and normative disciplinary practices may inadvertently serve to perpetuate a violent system. The suggestion is that “do no harm” as the sole standard in social research is not sufficient to fully understand and address the depth of social oppression and structural violence in the real-world contexts. This chapter suggests an additional standard for ethical research in peace psychology to “do good.” This ethical standard to “do good” empowers those harmed by the violent system to understand the need for change and develop effective strategies to promote and sustain change in any context.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.