New systematic review documents patient harm in conversion therapy

[R. Matey]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Here's a new review out in this month's AP on the harms of conversion therapy, likely done in light of the recent SCOTUS decision (APA PsycNet) that came across the ACBT forums today. I was more familiar with the prospective than the retrospective research so in all an interesting read. I think it's great to have an updated review only so we have something more concrete to point to rather than the older Annual Review piece.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Here's a new review out in this month's AP on the harms of conversion therapy, likely done in light of the recent SCOTUS decision (APA PsycNet) that came across the ACBT forums today. I was more familiar with the prospective than the retrospective research so in all an interesting read. I think it's great to have an updated review only so we have something more concrete to point to rather than the older Annual Review piece.

What really amazes me about the counselor named in this lawsuit is that they're licensed.

>Chiles went to federal court in Colorado to challenge the constitutionality of the 2019 law and block Colorado from enforcing it against her. She contended that she did not attempt to “convert” her clients. Instead, she said, she merely tried to help them “with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”

Sure what she's doing may not be illegal, and I won't bother to argue in one direction or the other .... but that doesn't mean that she should keep her license if she is doing what we would consider conversion therapy. Like many of my grievances in this field, she may be practicing harmful pseudoscience and licensing exists to uphold standards of care.
I imagine the burden of proof is quite a few ladders lower when licensing boards conduct an investigation to see if someone's license should be revoked compared to criminal charges.

Maybe I'm missing something, would be curious to hear from the old-heads.

 

[WisNeuro]

What really amazes me about the counselor named in this lawsuit is that they're licensed.

>Chiles went to federal court in Colorado to challenge the constitutionality of the 2019 law and block Colorado from enforcing it against her. She contended that she did not attempt to “convert” her clients. Instead, she said, she merely tried to help them “with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”

Sure what she's doing may not be illegal, and I won't bother to argue in one direction or the other .... but that doesn't mean that she should keep her license if she is doing what we would consider conversion therapy. Like many of my grievances in this field, she may be practicing harmful pseudoscience and licensing exists to uphold standards of care.
I imagine the burden of proof is quite a few ladders lower when licensing boards conduct an investigation to see if someone's license should be revoked compared to criminal charges.

Maybe I'm missing something, would be curious to hear from the old-heads.

As with my earlier arguments on this, we already allow a lot of potentially harmful pseudoscience to be practiced, how do we determine which harmful pseudoscience results in loss of license and which we turn a blind eye to?

 

[R. Matey]

As with my earlier arguments on this, we already allow a lot of potentially harmful pseudoscience to be practiced, how do we determine which harmful pseudoscience results in loss of license and which we turn a blind eye to?

How about science? For instance, IFS is not probably ineffective and may even be harmful, but there isn't scientific evidence showing that it's harmful (yet). In conversion therapy, there is documented evidence that it is harmful.

 

[WisNeuro]

How about science? For instance, IFS is not probably ineffective and may even be harmful, but there isn't scientific evidence showing that it's harmful (yet). In conversion therapy, there is documented evidence that it is harmful.

Sure, we can use science, but we still allow clearly harmful psych tx. I'll still refer back to my earlier example of psych related concussion clinics, which harm people on a far greater magnitude than conversion therapy providers. I agree with you that it's harmful in most circumstances, but it's set up to be a legal football if jurisdictions try to pull licenses. And, in this climate and with how the courts have been stacked, I don't think most people in psychology are going to like the legal outcome.

 

[R. Matey]

Sure, we can use science, but we still allow clearly harmful psych tx. I'll still refer back to my earlier example of psych related concussion clinics, which harm people on a far greater magnitude than conversion therapy providers. I agree with you that it's harmful in most circumstances, but it's set up to be a legal football if jurisdictions try to pull licenses. And, in this climate and with how the courts have been stacked, I don't think most people in psychology are going to like the legal outcome.

What I hope this review and others like it can do is continually build the case for pulling licenses in jurisdictions where willfully violating the Standards warrants an investigation (such as mine). The SCOTUS case considered the state-wide ban. Chiles could, in theory, still lose her license. I also understand theory and practice diverge regularly.

Germane to the SCOTUS decision is that point (which likely swayed 2/3 liberal justices at the very least) Chiles wasn't engaged in aversion therapy but rather "just talking," the supplemental material documents (1) whether harm was committed by patient report and (2) whether aversion therapy was used. Unsurprising that harm is still present even if when "just talking" was the intervention.

 

[PsyDr]

This is an extension of blurred lines between treating "problems of life" vs treating "diagnosis". If you can treat someone who is unable to be aroused by their obese spouse, you've already established your willingness to treat a normal sexual reaction.

(that should upset at least 2 groups)

 

[futureapppsy2]

I feel like another important point here is that conversion therapy, well, doesn't work--the best possible outcome is the patient realizing that they are actually bi and that they are attracted to the person they are partnered with, but they still have the shame and stigma of being told that their same-sex attraction is inherently bad and they are bad for feeling it. The modal outcome is two people in a relationship with zero attraction to each other, not infrequently having affairs on the side, and also dealing with the shame and stigma of being told that their same-sex attraction is inherently bad, they are bad for feeling it, and they are bad for not being able to force heterosexual attraction on themselves. It's a "therapy" where you have essentially no chance of a good outcome for the patient and a lot of risk of both direct and collateral harm.