And unfortunately a ruling like this is going to lead to fewer board complaints being sustained (or even being made), and fewer malpractice suits let alone winning ones against people who are legitimately causing harm. It contributes to the delegitimization of the field.
What's interesting is it only challenges state laws that ban the practice. Boards could very well set their own standards, and it would be interesting to see how those cases would shake out. I think the easiest way to tackle it would be that a lack of assent on the part of the client (were there to not be assent, as this often seems to be parent-driven), combined with the ineffectivness and demonstrable harm of the therapy, could represent harming patients without their willing assent to treatment in the first place, which may violate professional standards without violating the first amendment
That def rubbed me the wrong way. Trash ruling, but expected.
The counter to your argument: the 2018 Right to Try act allows people to consent to completely unproven treatments, under certain conditions. FILA ruling says the state can't prohibit specific speech. But rule that provides conditions for when someone could consent to conversion might work. I guess if CO says it's legal for someone to hire a dominitrax to kick their crotch (actually legal), then the issue isn't about being able to consent to harm*.
I think the concern I have is more for the teens that aren't necessarily consenting, and actively are opposed to the treatment but enrolled by their parents, as is often the case. To provide a harmful treatment without the patient assenting/consenting would violate nonmaleficence, autonomy, consent, and beneficence across the board. To be honest, I think if a patient is fully consenting (or assenting, in the case of a teen) and actually wants this particular treatment then it should very well be their right. While I don't agree that it is helpful, it is generally done under the auspices of religion rather than psychology, and with that being the angle, it changes the ethical calculus when a participant is willing to engage.
The issue with the last part is that the plantiff in this case is a licensed counselor working under her counseling license. If she were, say, clergy doing "pastoral counseling", that would be different as there's no real medical/healthcare provider relationship there.
empiricalscotus.com
I think the major issue is that it isn't the field regulating itself, in this case, but rather the state passing laws that regulate the field. That's why I was curious whether a board might be able to intervene where the state has not, as the board sets standards of care under typical circumstances, not the state
But this is where the whole freedom of speech bit comes in- can one willing therapist and one willing patient who have a congruent belief system rooted in faith utilize a treatment that they believe in, as a matter of faith, despite it being contrary to thought within the field? Generally, the courts have upheld that this is acceptable, as in the case of Christian Scientists, physicians doing all sort of unsupported things for alternative medicine clinics, etc. It could be considered an alternative treatment aligned with one's faith, as much as a physician offering reiki for cancer could be offering alternative spiritual medicine and not lose their license.
There are still some surprises from justices like Gorsuch, Roberts, and Barrett, but Thomas and Alito will pretty much never waver from the ruling that a GOP administration wants.
Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across Ideological Lines
Supreme Court decisions come down to coalitions and are often predicated on the question of whether a justice can garner at least four additional other votes to support their position in a case. So…
Honestly, I don't trust this Supreme Court enough to trust that it's a definite "no" to the EO, even though the constitution is clear.
theonion.com
