Texas and E-Gay Therapy

[WisNeuro]

The Texas GOP has this in the first draft of their new state platform

"Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy."

Hooray bigotry and harmful mental health actions. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering we also have the most uninsured citizens in the US as well. If you happen to live here, please contact your representatives.


*Edit, the title is supposed to be "ex-Gay" not "E-Gay." That sounds like their trying to deliver it through the internet or some kind of vaporizer.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Let me guess, they didnt cite literature for the statement "recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle."

The statement dually implies that it works and that there is no harmful effect.

 

[WisNeuro]

Let me guess, they didnt cite literature for the statement "recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle."

The statement dually implies that it works and that there is no harmful effect.

How dare you bring facts into this!

 

[KillerDiller]

"Science is whatever we want it to be." --Dr. Leo Spaceman

 

[psych84]

Some of the US states are truly insane. I heard a week back that in Mississippi, a high school diploma makes you eligible to be a judge.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Some of the US states are truly insane. I heard a week back that in Mississippi, a high school diploma makes you eligible to be a judge.

The way it works in the south is that you have to know or be related to somebody. So yeah you probably could and lie about your credentials.

 

[erg923]

Some of the US states are truly insane. I heard a week back that in Mississippi, a high school diploma makes you eligible to be a judge.

Its just penetration of twisted religious views into state governments and political rulings. Canada has historically done well with that seperation. The US, not so much.

Someone made the statement on here a while back "as a Christian, I belive homosexuality is wrong...." This is wildly misleading and inaccurate. Chistianity requires ONE fundamental belief, as demonstrated by the resurrection. That is all. There is nothing about being a Christian, in and of itslef, that leads to the above stated inevitability.

 

[CaliMac]

Someone made the statement on her a while back of "as a Christian, I belive homosexuality is wrong...." This is wildly misleading and inaccurate. Chistianity requires ONE fundamental belief, as demonstrated by the resurrection. That is all. There is nothing about being a Chistian, in and of itslef, that leads to the above stated inevitability.

That user was trying to incite anger and opposition with every word. She did a good job with that statement: she insulted LGBTQ and also Christians in one blow. Tough split!

 

[deleted480308]

There doesn't need to be laws on this topic at all. If I want to pay someone to help me to not act on my impulses, it's my business. If I don't want to hire someone for that type of counseling because I am happy with my impulses, it's my business.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm actually fine if there are no laws prohibiting it for adults. But, there should also be no law preventing individuals who do such "treatment" from losing their license as we have adequate research to show that this is actually damaging to people, and very much against our ethical principles. Also, if a child is forced into this type of "treatment" it is technically child abuse and should be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm actually fine if there are no laws prohibiting it for adults. But, there should also be no law preventing individuals who do such "treatment" from losing their license as we have adequate research to show that this is actually damaging to people, and very much against our ethical principles. Also, if a child is forced into this type of "treatment" it is technically child abuse and should be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

soooo, no law banning it...but removal of license for those who offer it to consenting adults? Was that a typo or am I reading you incorrectly?

and very much against our ethical principles.

against your ethical principles. If an adult wants use counseling to address any desire that they wish to refrain from acting on...that's their business.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, against the APA Code of ethics principles. And yes, you read me correctly, any practitioner practicing it should not be eligible for licensure as a psychologist.

 

[deleted480308]

No, against the APA Code of ethics principles. And yes, you read me correctly, any practitioner practicing it should not be eligible for licensure as a psychologist.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3

I'm not trying to be snarky here...but what about providing counseling to an adult who voluntarily asked for it would be in violation of these principles?

 

[WisNeuro]

Here are a few areas

Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people's understanding of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organizations and society.

Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.


Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline. (See also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence, and 10.01b, Informed Consent to Therapy.)

3.04 Avoiding Harm
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

 

[WisNeuro]

The issue is that it is a procedure that we have good evidence showing that it actually harms people. It makes them more prone to anxiety and depression.

 

[erg923]

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3

I'm not trying to be snarky here...but what about providing counseling to an adult who voluntarily asked for it would be in violation of these principles?

IMO, yes, given the negative outcomes/effects it can cause. Id id like to hear it argued otherwise.

As psychologists, we obligated to do no harm. If we have reasonable evidence that ANY treatment would likley be more harmful than potentially helpful, then we shouldnt do it. Its really no different than surgeons who refuse to do a back surgery due to a lopsided risk/benefit ratio. Its not cause it wouldnt possibly help at all for that individual perosn, its that the risk is too high.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Does anyone know of the likelihood of this passing? While trying to stave off my frustration about this, I would have to admit that they are digging their own grave on this one.

 

[WisNeuro]

Does anyone know of the likelihood of this passing? While trying to stave off my frustration about this, I would have to admit that they are digging their own grave on this one.

It's really just a GOP plank for the state party, not a bill. But, still atrocious.

 

[deleted480308]

IMO, yes, given the negative outcomes/effects it can cause. Id id like to hear it argued otherwise.

As psychologists, we obligated to do no harm. If we have reasonable evidence that ANY treatment would likley be more harmful than potentially helpful, then we shouldnt do it. Its really no different than surgeons who refuse to do a back surgery due to a lopsided risk/benefit ratio. Its not cause it wouldnt possibly help at all for that individual perosn, its that the risk is too high.

In fairness to you guys, my libertarianism is showing. Much like I think informed and consenting adults should be able to smoke/eat/do whatever they want, I put hiring people in that same category. If I'm a straight guy who wants some help stopping looking at porn because I find it incompatible with my religion, or a gay man wanting to stop sleeping with men, or jew/muslim wanting to stay away from delicious shellfish/pork I should be able to go and hire help to navigate that without my help losing their license. If you as an individual decide it's not your cup of tea to be hired for that, it's also cool because you are an adult and I can go hire someone else.

I just find ripping licenses away just because you don't think some therapy is worth the risks is a bit authoritarian.

 

[erg923]

You will grow out of pure liberatrianism by about age 30.

 

[erg923]

I just find ripping licenses away just because you don't think some therapy is worth the risks is a bit authoritarian.

Well, yes. It is. Thats the point. A organization that oversees the behavior and competence of its professionals. Do you have a problems with the AMA too?

 

[deleted480308]

You will grow out of pure liberatrianism by about age 30.

mid thirties...been growing into it for about 10yrs. But my younger self would have been a reagan/bush worshiper so I'm considering this progress

 

[WisNeuro]

I just find ripping licenses away just because you don't think some therapy is worth the risks is a bit authoritarian.

Worth the risks?! There are 0 reputable studies that show conversion therapy does what it purports to do. There are many studies showing that it increases anxiety, depression, suicidality, etc. It is dangerous. This isn't an issue of choice, it's an issue of public safety. And it clearly violates our code of ethics. I can't suddenly say that I'm going to have sex with my patients because I think it's good therapy and expect to keep my license can I?

 

[deleted480308]

Well, yes. It is. Thats the point. A organization that oversees the behavior and competence of its professionals. Do you have a problems with the AMA too?

We can have the monopoly licensing debate another day . I'm fine with the concept of requiring training/ethics to maintain the endorsement of the APA, I don't understand how it is unethical to provide a service to an informed adult. Maybe require notification that they are asking for something that doesn't have high rates of meeting the desired results and can cause depression. Much like there are acne medications known to have risks for depression...I wouldn't ban them for adults as long as the adults were made aware of the risks.

 

[deleted480308]

Worth the risks?! There are 0 reputable studies that show conversion therapy does what it purports to do. There are many studies showing that it increases anxiety, depression, suicidality, etc. It is dangerous. This isn't an issue of choice, it's an issue of public safety. And it clearly violates our code of ethics. I can't suddenly say that I'm going to have sex with my patients because I think it's good therapy and expect to keep my license can I?

The APA actually references programs with low success rates, they do however (which I'm not denying) say that there are clearly risks of negative effects as well. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

 

[erg923]

Worth the risks?! There are 0 reputable studies that show conversion therapy does what it purports to do. There are many studies showing that it increases anxiety, depression, suicidality, etc. It is dangerous. This isn't an issue of choice, it's an issue of public safety. And it clearly violates our code of ethics. I can't suddenly say that I'm going to have sex with my patients because I think it's good therapy and expect to keep my license can I?

Libertaranism, or whatever you wana call it buys into an "every man for himself notion" so they would probably say licenses are unecessary and said psychologist would lse buisness/patients based on the free-market and reputation, etc. Amoral silliness in my book.

 

[WisNeuro]

You don't understand how performing a service known to be harmful is unethical? Seriously?
Not to mention that many of the patients in these programs are minors who are forced into the "treatment." You don't see the ethical problems here?


As psychologists we deliver empirically supported treatment. If you deliver this treatment that is not supported and is known to do harm, you are not a psychologist and do not deserve to be licensed as such.

 

[erg923]

We can have the monopoly licensing debate another day . I'm fine with the concept of requiring training/ethics to maintain the endorsement of the APA, I don't understand how it is unethical to provide a service to an informed adult. Maybe require notification that they are asking for something that doesn't have high rates of meeting the desired results and can cause depression. Much like there are acne medications known to have risks for depression...I wouldn't ban them for adults as long as the adults were made aware of the risks.

Because "ethics" inevitabley have moral notions/morality at their core. Look at the five principles for goodness sakes! I, and the APA, find it "unethical" because I (we) find it morally "wrong" to hurt other humans when I (we) know in advance that that is what I (we) am doing!

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

In fairness to you guys, my libertarianism is showing. Much like I think informed and consenting adults should be able to smoke/eat/do whatever they want, I put hiring people in that same category. If I'm a straight guy who wants some help stopping looking at porn because I find it incompatible with my religion, or a gay man wanting to stop sleeping with men, or jew/muslim wanting to stay away from delicious shellfish/pork I should be able to go and hire help to navigate that without my help losing their license. If you as an individual decide it's not your cup of tea to be hired for that, it's also cool because you are an adult and I can go hire someone else.

I just find ripping licenses away just because you don't think some therapy is worth the risks is a bit authoritarian.

There is a big difference between someone seeking help for excessive porn-viewing vs. someone who is gay (child or adult). You likened pornography and the treatment thereof as being a problem, so is homosexuality, and therefore those two share similarities in that one should receive help for it. In my personal opinion, I think it should be the other way around, I am an advocate for someone who is gay to seek help in how to embrace, adjust, etc. To view being gay as a terminal illness (which it is not), is counterproductive. The flip side to this is, you are advocating for practitioners to train, provide treatment and to advocate that being gay is an illness and those who seek to "pray it away" should be allowed to partake in therapy for it. While I see your point that any two consenting adults should be able to do anything they want (to a reasonable degree), they will greatly impact a larger community than just yourself, and that would be overstepping from ones' personal beliefs to interfering with the greater population on a topic that lacks evidence to suggest being gay is pathological, maladaptive, etc.

 

[bcliff]

soooo, no law banning it...but removal of license for those who offer it to consenting adults? Was that a typo or am I reading you incorrectly?



against your ethical principles. If an adult wants use counseling to address any desire that they wish to refrain from acting on...that's their business.

The term psychologist is a protected term, and all patients are entitled to certain rights and expectations when they seek out psychological services from a licensed psychologist. If ministers, life coaches, non-licensed folk, etc. want to offer these services then more power to them. Limiting the types of services that a licensed psychologist can perform is the only way to guarantee consistency in what it means to actually be a licensed psychologist. I would never want to receive psychological intervention from a psychologist who also offered 'reparative therapy', or whatever it's called nowadays, not only because it goes against my own personal beliefs, but because it calls into question the psychologist's competency, since they are still using a form of intervention that has been repeatedly found ineffective and oftentimes harmful.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I suppose it'd be sort of like going to a physician and having them perform trepanation to evacuate evil spirits from your skull.

Should an adult with capacity to make such decisions be able to seek out such services if they truly thought they might help? Eh, perhaps. Should a licensed medical professional be providing said services? Probably not, given that the evidence base doesn't really support it.

And I agree that likening therapy to stop viewing pornography or eating pork to therapy to essentially stop being gay is somewhat problematic. The more appropriate comparison would probably be if a heterosexual male came to a psychologist asking for therapy because he wanted to stop wanting to have sex with women and/or wanted to develop desires to have sex with men.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Libertaranism, or whatever you wana call it buys into an "every man for himself notion" so they would probably say licenses are unecessary and said psychologist would lse buisness/patients based on the free-market and reputation, etc. Amoral silliness in my book.

A more accurate description would be, "every man is free to choose for himself" (phrased in a single gender for simplicity). A man may choose to attend a sweat lodge for spiritual enlightenment, while another may choose to see a quack life coach (purposefully redundant ) for reparative therapy to "treat" his homosexuality.…and neither man is wrong. I personally may not agree with the choice, but it is in the end his choice. However, as a professional (in this case a psychologist) I am bound by ethics and also the law to practice within a set of boundaries.

 

[psychRA]

I suppose it'd be sort of like going to a physician and having them perform trepanation to evacuate evil spirits from your skull.

Should an adult with capacity to make such decisions be able to seek out such services if they truly thought they might help? Eh, perhaps. Should a licensed medical professional be providing said services? Probably not, given that the evidence base doesn't really support it.

I think this is a good analogy. An adult with capacity should have the right to seek out a treatment that s/he thinks will be helpful, but that doesn't mean that person has the right to receive that treatment, nor that any profession is obligated to provide it. When an entire profession has substantial research that supports the harmfulness of that reatment, the governing body of that profession should have the right to say that anyone who provides that treatment has violated the ethical principles of the profession.

There's nothing illegal about walking into a surgeon's office, explaining that you're tired of being right-handed, and asking them to please remove your (healthy and functional) right arm so that you're forced to use your left hand. You should certainly have the right to seek out a consultation. I don't know what the law says about a surgeon who agrees to that procedure, but I would hope that the AMA and the licensing authority would have the ability to step in and take action.

I actually don't think that the government necessarily needs to outlaw ex-gay therapy, since lawmakers generally don't have advanced training in science or psychology, but I wholeheartedly agree that licensing boards should have the ability to suspend licenses over it.

 

[deleted480308]

I wholeheartedly agree that licensing boards should have the ability to suspend licenses over it.

I would agree with you if the government didn't enforce a defacto monopoly on licensing. But once again, my libertarianism is showing

 

[WisNeuro]

?? States license psychologists, under guidelines from the APA. Who else should license? And how would that ensure a minimum standard for public safety?

People can practice without a license for many things. You want the license, play by the rules of public safety. how is this a monopoly?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

.

 

[psych84]

To a good ole Canadian the argument sounds like "If I want to be surgeon, that is my right as an American citizen, this is MERICA, we won't stand for our rights being trampled by the crazy government. It's called the free market".

I'm not even exaggerating, this is essentially what some people were arguing during the last Presidential election.

And then we wonder why there are unaccredited schools that don't seem all that concerned about competence.

 

[WisNeuro]

To a good ole Canadian the argument sounds like "If I want to be surgeon, that is my right as an American citizen, this is MERICA, we won't stand for our rights being trampled by the crazy government. It's called the free market".

I'm not even exaggerating, this is essentially what some people were arguing during the last Presidential election.

And then we wonder why there are unaccredited schools that don't seem all that concerned about competence.

Yeah, it's a naive and absurd notion. A true free market would be a scary place indeed, littered with the bodies of citizens mislead with false or misleading claims. Terrible idea.

 

[erg923]

I would agree with you if the government didn't enforce a defacto monopoly on licensing. But once again, my libertarianism is showing [/QUOTE]

Dude, what the **** is the point of "licensing" if its run by an entity with no authority and those licensed can do anything they want?

 

[WisNeuro]

Dude, what the **** is the point of "licensing" if its run by an entity with no authority and those licensed can do anything they want?[/QUOTE]

'MURRICA!! Freedom!!! Liberty!!

 

[MCParent]

against your ethical principles. If an adult wants use counseling to address any desire that they wish to refrain from acting on...that's their business.

That's a juvenile understanding of ethical thinking.

If someone came to therapy and said that if she weighs more than 80 lbs she's a cow, I /could/ help the patient achieve that goal with basic behavioral interventions. Doing so would obviously be insanely unethical.

 

[deleted480308]

That's a juvenile understanding of ethical thinking.

If someone came to therapy and said that if she weighs more than 80 lbs she's a cow, I /could/ help the patient achieve that goal with basic behavioral interventions. Doing so would obviously be insanely unethical.

The analogy doesn't work. It is not necessarily harmful to attempt to redirect a sexual appetite (gay or straight)

 

[erg923]

That an empirical question. What does your literature search of this topic conclude?

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

It is when you are insisting that sexual appetite and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive. What the previous posters are trying to emphasize is, while some people want a service because they feel entitled to it, it is very harmful, counterproductive, etc. As PsychRA mentioned, just because you feel you have the right to request an amputation of your perfectly healthy and functioning hand, the clinician has the right to say no due to being upheld by a code of ethics by their licensing body. Libertarian or not, there are certain expectations that must be upheld regardless of personal opinion. I am an agnostic, I am not a fan of religious institutions however I would love to work with those who are religiously inclined, respect their beliefs and know that for the person, religion plays an important role in their life, it's a matter of maintaining the boundaries of maladaptive behaviors and how their religiosity is impacting their way of life. In a perfect world, we could live together in harmony without deceit, jealousy, anger, etc. that often contribute to questionable choices and thought processes made by individuals and groups, but, because we are often governed by these processes, rules are set in place, expectations are set in how a society should function as a means to be the most productive, happy, etc. Again, the idea of "no regulations, less regulations" are a touchy subject in professions that require such paradigms to function in a cohesive, unitary manner.

 

[WisNeuro]

The analogy doesn't work. It is not necessarily harmful to attempt to redirect a sexual appetite (gay or straight)

Sexual appetite and sexual orientation are not even remotely the same thing. And, attempting to redirect a sexual orientation is harmful. We have good data showing just that. Additionally, many people forced into this type of procedure are minors. Individuals who cannot legally consent and are a protected class.

 

[erg923]

I think the simplest way to put this in perspective is to reverse it.

A heterosexual male/female comes to you and asks for reparative therapy (or whatever) for his/her heterosexuality. As a psychologist, would you agree to this? If not, why? What possible adverse consequences/side effects could you foresee occurring from this attempt at behavior change?

I think any reasonably educated and competent psychologist (even grad student) would have enough knowledge about human behavior/development/emotion to realize that this is very bad idea with very real risks. If you would like to continue forward, then you should not be licensed as a competent mental health professional. Call yourself an ex-gay therapist or whatever, I don't care. But you cant really call yourself a "psychologist" can you? At least not if we are using the same definition of "psychologist."

 

[futureapppsy2]

Sexual appetite and sexual orientation are not even remotely the same thing.

In addition to this, there's also some interesting emerging research showing that in some people sexual and romantic orientations may be divergent--for example, someone may be attracted to both sexes but only romantically attracted to one, romantically attracted to one but sexually attracted to other, etc.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The analogy doesn't work. It is not necessarily harmful to attempt to redirect a sexual appetite (gay or straight)

So how much physical and mental abuse is in your opinion required before your libertarianism falters and the government's arm needs to come in and protect them? How much pain do other people who have more in common with you than those you wish to empower have to suffer before you stand and say that they're innocent and in need of protection? The reality is that these therapies don't work and the best thing is to accept yourself, because if you don't you do stupid things and harmful things to yourself and others.

Look, I understand you're a Christian and you believe homosexuality is both a sin and something that can truly be staved off ( and probably ideally staved off), but by supporting therapies that are inherently harmful to people, by allowing parents to force their children into these settings ( That violate everything ethical in a health setting) you are ensuring that these children will harm themselves and I'm not sure you realized it, but by voicing support or doing nothing, their blood is on your hands.

 

[deleted480308]

So how much physical and mental abuse is in your opinion required before your libertarianism falters and the government's arm needs to come in and protect them? How much pain do other people who have more in common with you than those you wish to empower have to suffer before you stand and say that they're innocent and in need of protection? The reality is that these therapies don't work and the best thing is to accept yourself, because if you don't you do stupid things and harmful things to yourself and others.

Look, I understand you're a Christian and you believe homosexuality is both a sin and something that can truly be staved off ( and probably ideally staved off), but by supporting therapies that are inherently harmful to people, by allowing parents to force their children into these settings ( That violate everything ethical in a health setting) you are ensuring that these children will harm themselves and I'm not sure you realized it, but by voicing support or doing nothing, their blood is on your hands.

Lay off the hyperbole, I have been saying consenting adults seeking help. I'm not talking about locking children up

And for clarification, I don't necessarily think that a professional can make someone not have attraction to their gender. I certainly doubt a professional could stop me from being physically attracted to beautiful women. But if I was having trouble reconciling my religion with acting on those attractions, I would want to find someone who could help me with some coping mechanisms...handling feelings of guilt for attractions/not acting on desires that I found contrary to my beliefs etc...just like if I was a single adult straight christian male, I should be able to seek help to stay celibate until marriage if I am struggling with that.

(now drifting away from medical/political and into solely religious thoughts) I should also add for clarification that I don't think it is a sin for person to think their gender is attractive any more than I think it is a sin for someone to find the opposite gender attractive. I think the Bible is clear about lust and having sex outside of a religious marriage but I would place attraction as nothing more than a wiring/temptation issue, it is what we do with that attraction that places us in the realm of a sin.

 

[erg923]

Then go to a priest or similar clergy or pastoral counselor. It's NOT our scope, its unscientific, and it's against our ethics. What's your problem here? Plus, you have yet to answer my question about the reverse situation???