Obama to Call for End to Conversion Therapies

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Have you ever worked in the South? I've seen ads for this a good deal. It is indeed real, and some state legislatures are trying to pass bills protecting this "treatment."

It's also a timing issue. With all of the religious freedom laws popping up and anti-bigotry fervor at a high level, it's a way to keep the momentum. Makes sense.
 
Also, the Texas GOP went as far as to add it to their official, published platform.

"Reparative Therapy- We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy."

Anti-science at its best
 
WisNeuro said:
Have you ever worked in the South? I've seen ads for this a good deal. It is indeed real, and some state legislatures are trying to pass bills protecting this "treatment."

It's also a timing issue. With all of the religious freedom laws popping up and anti-bigotry fervor at a high level, it's a way to keep the momentum. Makes sense.
Click to expand...

I have worked in the Southern U.S. quite a bit...I just never encountered this before in any kind of practice setting. I am assuming the clients must be all private pay as I can't imagine any insurance covers this form of 'treatment.'
 
LOL. Truly strange. It doesn't sound like any form of actual 'therapy' at all. If it's just religious indoctrination then: (a) they shouldn't have to pay for it; and (b) I'm not sure it should be considered a medical or psychological treatment. Strange times we live in, indeed.
 
WisNeuro said:
Well, it's not considered a treatment of any sort by the medical or mental health community, due to the evidence against it. Apparently the only groups who consider a bona fide treatment are churches and the GOP. Because god.
Click to expand...

Well...I suppose the Almighty must have, somewhere up there in the clouds, a celestial version of 'Treatments That Work.' Wish I could gander a peek at it from time to time while struggling with some of my most irksome clinical cases.
 
When I was working as a psychometrist in PP, a family brought in their gay son for assessment and referral for conversion therapy. The psychologist I worked for offered referral for family therapy, but they went elsewhere - It was very upsetting. I'm glad to see BO take a stand against it.
 
WisNeuro said:
Well, it's not considered a treatment of any sort by the medical or mental health community, due to the evidence against it. Apparently the only groups who consider a bona fide treatment are churches and the GOP. Because god.
Click to expand...

To make matters worse, research shows that conversion therapy isn't just useless but actively harmful psychologically for many people who undergo it.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
To make matters worse, research shows that conversion therapy isn't just useless but actively harmful psychologically for many people who undergo it.
Click to expand...

That's not anxiety and depression that they are feeling. It's just the growing pains of their soul as they are becoming "whole" again as they reject their lifestyle choice.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I have worked in the Southern U.S. quite a bit...I just never encountered this before in any kind of practice setting. I am assuming the clients must be all private pay as I can't imagine any insurance covers this form of 'treatment.'
Click to expand...

I'm not primarily a clinician, but I've seen a good number of people who had been sent to these people when they were younger.

Several religions have/had their own things (e.g., LDS Evergreen, which is not longer around).

Take a look at the reparative therapy manuals for fun some day. They'd be funny if they weren't so sad. The "therapy" is weird.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Interesting. I've worked in mental health for over 20 years and, not only have I never directly encountered anyone who did this type of 'therapy'...I've never even heard of anyone doing this type of therapy. Obviously an epidemic that requires presidential action.
Click to expand...
I consider you and myself lucky not to come in contact with anyone practicing it. However, enough people are actually doing it.
http://www.splcenter.org/conversion-therapy

Nearly 70 therapists currently advertise they practice conversion therapy in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...
and that's just the ones "advertising" it.

Can't forget this connection
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/miche...linic-offers-gay-conversion/story?id=14057215
 
MCParent said:
I'm not primarily a clinician, but I've seen a good number of people who had been sent to these people when they were younger.

Several religions have/had their own things (e.g., LDS Evergreen, which is not longer around).

Take a look at the reparative therapy manuals for fun some day. They'd be funny if they weren't so sad. The "therapy" is weird.
Click to expand...

What is weird, is the fact that it has been allowed to become such a trend that a politician has to come out and say it is wrong. It is weird and disturbing that individuals are subjected to this.
 
xXIDaShizIXx said:
What is weird, is the fact that it has been allowed to become such a trend that a politician has to come out and say it is wrong. It is weird and disturbing that individuals are subjected to this.
Click to expand...

This country has a habit of passing legislation and allowing practices based on hatred and off the wall interpretations of a cobbled together book of allegories and fictional tales, counter to the prevailing science. Not so weird in my opinion.
 
xXIDaShizIXx said:
What is weird, is the fact that it has been allowed to become such a trend that a politician has to come out and say it is wrong. It is weird and disturbing that individuals are subjected to this.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's disturbing, but it's bizarre. The manual I read literally had suggestions like "learn to fix cars." There was also a lot of affectionate touching. I presume that's supposed to be exposure and desensitization, though the people I know who went through the thing said that was not the obtained effect....
 
MCParent said:
I mean, it's disturbing, but it's bizarre. The manual I read literally had suggestions like "learn to fix cars." There was also a lot of affectionate touching. I presume that's supposed to be exposure and desensitization, though the people I know who went through the thing said that was not the obtained effect....
Click to expand...

Did this manual include the genital shock treatment? Or was it one of the more progressive treatment manuals?
 
I haven't met anyone who provides "conversion therapy," but I've met people who have considered it for themselves or their children.

xXIDaShizIXx said:
What is weird, is the fact that it has been allowed to become such a trend that a politician has to come out and say it is wrong. It is weird and disturbing that individuals are subjected to this.
Click to expand...

It's less of a trend and more fringe/underground now than in decades past, but those opposed to civil rights for people who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual would have you believe otherwise.
 
I had a friend who actually considered conversion therapy after he first came out to his family. He actually went to a "therapist" in their church who was advocating for it, as well. About that time, he went to a psychiatrist who prescribed medication to treat his depressed mood that was a result of his family's religious fanaticism and difficulty with accepting his sexual orientation. Fortunately, he learned to be comfortable with himself despite what others might think or say, set boundaries with his parents, avoid his more fanatical grandparents, and focus his energy on being a productive person and trying to have healthy relationships and avoid the bad ones. He had a little more difficulty with the latter, as many of us do. 😉

I have an issue with intolerance of society, but I get really angry when we pathologize normal behavior. It wasn't that long ago that the DSM included homosexuality as a disorder and the tendency to use medications as a front line choice to treat mild depressive symptoms that are within the normal range of experience is frightening, as well. Especially since the efficacy in mild depression is not supported by research and I suspect that in many cases it might do more harm than good, but not a lot of outcome research in that direction.
 
I think it's ridiculous that this even requires an executive statement...

As professionals in health provider roles, if we are even remotely adhering to the principal of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, this should not even be a debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence suggests it does not work. So if, in your role as a psychologist or therapist, you are providing so called "reparative therapies", particularly with non-consenting youth/young adults, you should have your licensed revoked. No need for a presidential statement, let's just adhere to our ethical code and call it a day.

Gah. This kind of stuff is infuriating to me.
 
I kinda wish nationally prominent politicians would use their pulpit to raise awareness for, say, panic control treatment for panic disorder or CBT for depression. But that wouldn't be very sexy or newsworthy.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I kinda wish nationally prominent politicians would use their pulpit to raise awareness for, say, panic control treatment for panic disorder or CBT for depression. But that wouldn't be very sexy or newsworthy.
Click to expand...
Yep. Depression doesn't bring people to the polls and a politicians first goal is to be (re-)elected.
 
starvingstatic said:
Your second sentence had me ready to say pretty much what you said in the third. I can't remember at the moment where I read it or saw it, but I recall learning about a sort of conversion therapy camp a few years ago, and one of the treatment activities was for the men to get in their underwear and progressively go into closer physical touch situations, basically eventually spooning. I wish I was kidding.

I also wish I could be kidding when I say that I've encountered many who fail to see how these are different than exposure therapies. Granted, many of these folks have been students, but that's more troubling to me, at least when I think from the perspective of hoping this mindset is antiquated.

What has fired me up most about both the president's "statement" and the subsequent media coverage since is the complete failure to make the distinction between legitimate mental health providers and those who too colloquially get included in that definition. The APA has expressly stated that anyone who wants to keep their license/career had better not even mention, recommend, or practice conversion therapy (see http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.pdf for a brief summary; there are several more sources in the references list). This could be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by illustrating the trouble that comes of believing mental healthcare to be something that could ever be relegated to anyone but a certified professionals AND emphasizing that seeking guidance from a pastor or the like is NOT the same as therapy.

EDIT: And, though comments sections are generally nothing but quicksand, if you want to get a handle on where the general populace is REALLY at, read some of the comments on any given website or article about this. It's the first time in a while I've read through many, many comments on many different sites and failed to find anything in which I can find any sort of merit, much less hope.
Click to expand...

This is why a firm understanding of the scientific underpinnings (along with relevant theory) is so crucial in our field. To the uninitiated and uninformed, 'spooning men' may look like 'exposure therapy' but is actually anything but. It's also dangerous in graduate training to be so 'technique focused' and light on the underlying theory (and accompanying research/clinical database).
 
xr178 said:
As many other people have said in the thread, there is strong scientific consensus about conversion therapy for homosexuality being ineffective and unethical, however I do have a concern about this statement from Obama and some of the bills that are going through state legislatures currently which is that they conflate sexual orientation and gender identity. The bills often forbid conversion therapy for minors regarding "sexual orientation and gender identity" when they are two totally different things. Conversion therapy for sexual orientation is not the same as "conversion therapy" for childhood gender identity issues.

Unlike sexual orientation, there is no scientific consensus on what the best practices are for children with gender dysphoria. We know historically 75-80% of them desist their gender dysphoria upon puberty, where the rest do not. Most of those that desist their gender dysphoria end up identifying as gay men or lesbians. Some of these laws essential forbid treatment other than gender transition and puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria and prevent mental health professionals for trying to treat the gender dysphoria other ways.

Here is a letter to the editor from psychologist Ray Blanchard talking about the difference between these two situations in respect to a similar proposed law in Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett...15/04/05/conversion-therapy-bill-opposed.html
Click to expand...

Yes there is actually quite a controversy going on in Canada about this right now, with a review of therapy practices of a psychologist at CAMH in Toronto who does reparative work with young clients with gender dysphoria.

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/13...w-its-controversial-treatment-of-trans-youth/
 
starvingstatic said:
What has fired me up most about both the president's "statement" and the subsequent media coverage since is the complete failure to make the distinction between legitimate mental health providers and those who too colloquially get included in that definition. The APA has expressly stated that anyone who wants to keep their license/career had better not even mention, recommend, or practice conversion therapy (see http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.pdf for a brief summary; there are several more sources in the references list).
Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate. It is true that all the main professional organizations that represent mental health providers (psychologists, psychiatrists, clinical social workers) have explicitly come out against such therapies. However, licensure is neither provided or maintained by APA, but rather is governed by state and state laws. Thus, it is up to the individuals states to set the standards of behavior for licensed mental health professionals. Consequently, as embarrassing for the field as this might be, an individual can be both licensed and providing conversion therapy. For this to change, the state laws would need to change. However, there is already some movement on that front, I believe California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have all banned licensed professionals from using conversion therapy. And a similar bill is currently underway in Illinois. http://www.illinoisobserver.net/2015/03/17/rep-cassidy-bill-gay-conversion-therapy-ban-faces-vote/
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Interesting. I've worked in mental health for over 20 years and, not only have I never directly encountered anyone who did this type of 'therapy'...I've never even heard of anyone doing this type of therapy. Obviously an epidemic that requires presidential action.
Click to expand...

I never know where to classify OK and TX, but we definitely have southern traits. However, wherever you live in the south, it is obviously not OK (wherever it should be classified).

Thank goodness this bill died after a quite a bit of advocacy on the part of MANY professional groups here in OK.

http://m.newsok.com/gay-conversion-therapy-bill-clears-oklahoma-house-committee/article/5396127

http://www.hrc.org/m/oklahoma-pro-conversion-therapy-bill-dies-on-state-house-floor

So while I see where many of you are coming from on what topics you would prefer to see covered by the president, this was a very real issue for our state and I was pleased to see it addressed it on a federal level. Make all the Oklahoma backwater jokes you want, but the fact is that there are still areas of the country where "pray the gay away" is a booming business and it forces the issue to be addressed.
 
PsychScience said:
This is not entirely accurate. It is true that all the main professional organizations that represent mental health providers (psychologists, psychiatrists, clinical social workers) have explicitly come out against such therapies. However, licensure is neither provided or maintained by APA, but rather is governed by state and state laws. Thus, it is up to the individuals states to set the standards of behavior for licensed mental health professionals. Consequently, as embarrassing for the field as this might be, an individual can be both licensed and providing conversion therapy. For this to change, the state laws would need to change. However, there is already some movement on that front, I believe California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have all banned licensed professionals from using conversion therapy. And a similar bill is currently underway in Illinois. http://www.illinoisobserver.net/2015/03/17/rep-cassidy-bill-gay-conversion-therapy-ban-faces-vote/
Click to expand...

Couldn't the national organization withdraw its support of the local organizations of that state? This would be highly punitive of the national organization, I know. But I think the fear that professionals might get banned from their larger national organizations, and prohibited from ever practicing in another state was one of the issues that helped kill the bill in OK.
 
Goobernut said:
Couldn't the national organization withdraw its support of the local organizations of that state? This would be highly punitive of the national organization, I know. But I think the fear that professionals might get banned from their larger national organizations, and prohibited from ever practicing in another state was one of the issues that helped kill the bill in OK.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this would ever realistically happen. Call me cynical, but I suspect there would be too much of a financial loss incurred by the national organization, and I just don't think any of them (especially APA) would risk that. However, I could be wrong. Indeed, I would be happy if I were.
 
PsychScience said:
I'm not sure this would ever realistically happen. Call me cynical, but I suspect there would be too much of a financial loss incurred by the national organization, and I just don't think any of them (especially APA) would risk that. However, I could be wrong. Indeed, I would be happy if I were.
Click to expand...

I think you have the truth of it here. Though I do think it's still pretty realistic that other state boards might think twice and doubly review any candidates from a state that protected providers of conversion therapy. There is already a high level of mistrust between some state boards ha!
 
Goobernut said:
So while I see where many of you are coming from on what topics you would prefer to see covered by the president, this was a very real issue for our state and I was pleased to see it addressed it on a federal level. Make all the Oklahoma backwater jokes you want, but the fact is that there are still areas of the country where "pray the gay away" is a booming business and it forces the issue to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was honestly a bit shocked by the responses I saw here regarding this (and noticing some interesting parallels between here and the multiculturalism thread...). It is not at all an uncommon practice, particularly in the Western US. The people offering these treatments are typically not regulated mental health professionals, but that says nothing about whether or not it happens; an additional problem is that it is often offered in spaces that combing LGBT youth with youth with conduct disorder (not well established CD of course, but CD based on parents' claims of their "out of control" kids), assuming both groups need treatment and lumping them in together. Parents can and still do send their gay and/or troubled children to camps overseas where we do not have legal oversight, but at least we can limit iatrogenic, extremely harmful "treatment" inside the United States. Seems like a reasonable goal, toward which this is a step. The mental health implications seem obvious, both in the sense that these treatments are seriously harmful (and thus we need to be aware as clinicians that this is a thing we may have to face), and in that it makes people doubt legitimate clinicians.
 
I am glad that Obama made this statement but I do worry about legislators acting to say what we can target for therapeutic interventions. I believe that APA and other mental health organizations and the licensing boards have left the door open for states to tell us what we should or should not do. I am completely against conversion "therapy", I am just not so sure that laws banning it are the best route. I would rather see it tied to licensure as a means of ensuring that the services we are providing are safe and effective and then go after the charlatans who are unlicensed more vigorously. I wonder how many licensed psychologists actually have practiced this type of crap or worked at any of these facilities, if so, the state board should take actions. I worked at a residential treatment program for troubled teens that had unlicensed therapists for many years and my job was to bring it into ethical compliance. Fortunately my employer saw the benefit in moving in that direction and that is why I was hired. I say fortunately because the state did absolutely nothing to ensure safe and ethical treatment was occurring with a vulnerable population. I was actually at greater risk taking the job since my own license was on the line as I tried to shift an entire program. BTW we had gay and lesbian and transgender kids and they were on relatively equal footing with the rest of the kids and part of their treatment was figuring out who they were and accepting themselves and their sexuality and learning how to have healthy relationships with effective communication. Really the same thing we tried to help all of the kids with. When I hired in to the place I asked specifically about LBGT as I did not in anyway want to get involved in some wacko conversion program and it was never an issue while I was there except for some of the parents who still needed assistance accepting their child as he or she was.
 
smalltownpsych said:
I am glad that Obama made this statement but I do worry about legislators acting to say what we can target for therapeutic interventions. I believe that APA and other mental health organizations and the licensing boards have left the door open for states to tell us what we should or should not do. I am completely against conversion "therapy", I am just not so sure that laws banning it are the best route..
Click to expand...

To be fair, from what I have seen, most of the states that have "banned" it, have only done so for children. In which case, laws against it are more than appropriate to protect a vulnerable segment of the population. It's one of the duties of state and federal lawmakers. As others have said, it's not usually licensed health professionals delivering this junk. In such case, the APA is powerless to act. It has to be an issue of legislation in these cases.
 
As ridiculously misguided, harmful, and even (probably) motivated by malice as these so-called 'treatments' are this does raise very interesting issues regarding what, exactly, is being 'banned' by the legislation (and the real 'banning', in effect, I would argue doesn't take place until there are actual cases with legal system involvement and case law delineating the actual contours of the prohibition in practice)? The state has a legitimate function to regulate/license mental health professionals and their practices (and this is already being done). So, what if a religious nut type wants to have a discussion group at their local church whose focus is on 'sexual health as a christian' and the precepts and principles discussed in that group by the discussion leader align substantially with those of prior practitioners of this form of 'therapy'? If it is not being offered as a form of 'treatment' for a mental health condition (but rather as a church discussion group), what are agents of the state going to do? Is there not an intersection here with the first amendment?

***To make it explicity clear: I disagree completely with the principles/whatever of this form of 'therapy'***
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
So, what if a religious nut type wants to have a discussion group at their local church whose focus is on 'sexual health as a christian' and the precepts and principles discussed in that group by the discussion leader align substantially with those of prior practitioners of this form of 'therapy'? If it is not being offered as a form of 'treatment' for a mental health condition (but rather as a church discussion group), what are agents of the state going to do? Is there not an intersection here with the first amendment?
Click to expand...

There is a well-established precedent about protecting vulnerable groups from harm. The First Amendment does not protect those who would harm individuals in these groups (children, elderly, mentally and physically disabled, etc). As stated before, I believe the focus has been on protecting children who are forced into this procedure.
 
WisNeuro said:
There is a well-established precedent about protecting vulnerable groups from harm. The First Amendment does not protect those who would harm individuals in these groups (children, elderly, mentally and physically disabled, etc). As stated before, I believe the focus has been on protecting children who are forced into this procedure.
Click to expand...

Okay...well, define 'harm' in this context, then. If members of a discussion group at a church as I described that charges a $10 fee for participation engage in speech that is aligned with the principles of this so-called 'therapy', when/where/how do the agents of the state step in and enforce the 'law?' What exactly is the law prohibiting in terms of people's behavior/speech?

I realize that people calling for violence are not protected by the first amendment nor are people who engage in behaviors that cause harm (that can be proved in a court of law, generally after the fact (after the harm has been caused)) protected--they may be subject to lawsuits due to the harm that they have demonstrably caused with their actions.
 
Psychological harm, and significantly increased chance of self-harm and suicide. It is definitely not a cut and dry issue, but not wholly unlike issues some of us face on a daily basis. For example elder abuse and financial exploitation. There is no clear cut line in the sand of when these things occur, but it doesn't mean that we don't have a duty to protect. Especially when we have ample data that certain actions lead to a significantly increased chance of harm, as in the case of reparative procedures forced on children and adolescents.
 
I am not as concerned with edge cases and adults, certainly you cannot prevent people from expressing the belief that people's orientations can be changed (and I wouldn't want to through legislation, disappointing as those views are). What I think you can do is prevent people from advertising and charging for a service that we know does not work / is harmful, especially for youth. What most people who support this legislation want is mostly for the conversion therapy youth camps to be closed or the conversion therapy specific part of youth "treatment centers" that deal with multiple issues to be eliminated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
How to be competitive for internship?
Replies
6
Views
2K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
PsyDr
Illinois becomes the first state to outlaw AI therapists
Replies
2
Views
783
ThatPsyGuy
ThatPsyGuy
P
Therapy Chatbot Tells Recovering Addict to Have a Little Meth as a Treat
Replies
38
Views
3K
clausewitz2
clausewitz2
PsyDocNess
Books to read to sharpen knowledge?
Replies
18
Views
2K
borne_before
borne_before
T
Feeling unprepared for therapy
Replies
18
Views
2K
ResidentForensicGirlie
ResidentForensicGirlie
Top