Pray your gay away! /s

[KillerDiller]

Not to change the subject of the thread, but I feel that I must address something that has been repeated here. LGBTQ is not a formally protected class of people. We are protected in the sense of hate crimes, but not much beyond that.
.

Fair enough, I thought that the EEOC protected against hiring discrimination for LGBTQ applicants, but apparently not.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MBellows]

Fair enough, I thought that the EEOC protected against hiring discrimination for LGBTQ applicants, but apparently not.

Trust me, I wish they would, but that's a story for another thread.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[MBellows]

This assumption is not only completely inaccurate, but it perpetuates ignorant and harmful stereotypes about the population. A transgender person presenting with a sinus infection does not need specialized treatment, but it is not at all uncommon (and I can guarantee more common than most of you would like to believe) for physicians to cry "I can't treat you!" and cite the person's HRT or surgical histories as reasons for that, which is total BS. Call me an idealist, but outside of specialized issues for which they would obviously be incompetent, there is no reason (other than personal preference, which boils down to incompetence and inability to practice) why a professional healthcare provider should not be able to put aside interpersonal differences and just. treat. the. patient.

It's not that I disagree with you, but I have to point out that physicians and therapists are apples and oranges. There's almost nothing to being a physician treating a sinus problem that is in common with a psychotherapist/counselor treating a client for anything. One is a personal process that depends highly on the relationship between the therapist and the client, the other depends almost entirely on the effectiveness of the medication prescribed.

As far as it goes in practice, most of the time mental healthcare would be much more accurately described as interpersonal than medical.

 

[G Costanza]

What continues to bother me about this legislation is the arbitrary line that's been drawn separating LGBT orientation under the premise of it calling into question the clinician's morality or beliefs. Just because the clinician disagrees with an orientation that means that they can't treat them properly? What does this clinician do when they have somebody who is in a happy relationship that is having sex that isn't married? They can't affirm that relationship either if we're talking about the same Christian principles. Yet no one is creating legislation to say that clinicians don't have to see people that are having sex outside of marriage. Why is that? I am a Christian but I see lots of Christians that love to hate other people. "Hate the sin but love the person?" That logic only works until you actually get to know an LGBT individual.

This type of legislation only feeds into those people that are drawn into picking and choosing a convenient morality that is used to hurt people.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I agree but only conditionally. I would not want a practitioner in any field to see a client who is seeking services that are specific to the reason(s) for which the practitioner is incompetent as a results of their own beliefs(so, by choice). But the important distinction is to understand how problematic is the assumption that everything a GLBT client could potentially present with is inherently specialized because of their sexuality/gender, and therefore necessitates specialized practice.

I'm going to take exception to this jump that the intolerance based on their beliefs would lead to the person being incompetent to work with the person. A person may be perfectly competent in providing an intervention or service to the person, but because of personal beliefs they choose not to provide those services. I don't believe it is fair to make that jump, regardless if their opinions differ from mine.

While, yes, each individual's situation will present unique variables and challenges, this is true for any client, and we are supposed to be capable (as a requirement of practice) of applying treatments across situations. Anything short of this is an incompetent therapist who should not be licensed or practicing.

Sue & Sue have written extensively about accounting for the role of diversity in the treatment of a patient. We cannot be all things to all people, even with consultation and supervision, so we need to know our own limits. Knowing when you shouldn't treat is just as important about knowing when you should...and how you should do it. It is far more ethical and in line with proper treatment to know the difference.

Likewise, a gay person presenting with depression/anxiety/relationship issues/family issues/basically any issue that has no direct tie to the gender/sex of the people with whom they prefer to have sex (which illustrates another issue for another discussion--the assumption that orientation = preference = behavior, because it doesn't) does not require specialized treatment. Depression is depression. Anxiety is anxiety. So some of the pronouns in client histories may change--big deal. A gay man is not devastated in any different of a way than a straight man is when their partner dies.

Oy vey. There are reams of literature that would disagree with you. For instance, a gay man losing his gay male partner of 20 years would have FAR different issues with depression and grieving than a heterosexual male losing his heterosexual female wife of 20 years. This isn't my area of work, nor is therapy something I do much of anymore, but I'm sure others can cite some good articles.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Not to change the subject of the thread, but I feel that I must address something that has been repeated here. LGBTQ is not a formally protected class of people. We are protected in the sense of hate crimes, but not much beyond that.

Thanks for the correction.

I agree but only conditionally. I would not want a practitioner in any field to see a client who is seeking services that are specific to the reason(s) for which the practitioner is incompetent as a results of their own beliefs (so, by choice). But the important distinction is to understand how problematic is the assumption that everything a GLBT client could potentially present with is inherently specialized because of their sexuality/gender, and therefore necessitates specialized practice.

I agree completely. That said, if a clinician was going to treat a client in a harmful manner once/if their sexuality comes up, I'd want to get the client to another clinician for their own well-being, not have them continue to see a clinician who could potentially do harm.

What continues to bother me about this legislation is the arbitrary line that's been drawn separating LGBT orientation under the premise of it calling into question the clinician's morality or beliefs. Just because the clinician disagrees with an orientation that means that they can't treat them properly? What does this clinician do when they have somebody who is in a happy relationship that is having sex that isn't married? They can't affirm that relationship either if we're talking about the same Christian principles. Yet no one is creating legislation to say that clinicians don't have to see people that are having sex outside of marriage. Why is that? I am a Christian but I see lots of Christians that love to hate other people. "Hate the sin but love the person?" That logic only works until you actually get to know an LGBT individual.

This type of legislation only feeds into those people that are drawn into picking and choosing a convenient morality that is used to hurt people.

I agree. There are people who do only see (evangelical) Christian clients and clients who would see a conservative, evangelical Christian therapist for tx. This probably also applies to other faiths, but because Christianity is dominant in the US, the demand is probably much higher.

Yeah, and I sort of assumed everyone knew this, but GLBT people are not a protected class of citizens, at the end of the day. Hence the extra need for vigilance against anything that could be a slippery slope.

I see the point, but as a member of a protected class (disability), it hasn't helped as much as one would hope--like I said, most discrimination happens behind closed doors and thus is near impossible to prove. Even in clinical psych, there's open debate about whether a therapist with a disability should be required to disclose their disability to all prospective clients. Still, it does guard against (most) overtly discriminatory laws, which is a boon.

 

[yippiyoay]

Oh, that must have been where I brought my story of my intern friend, when he reported to me he couldn't treat child abusers with objectivity, but was willing to refer them out, which I brought up as an example of behavior that should be modeled in all cases where therapists recognize they may lack objectivity to treat clients responsibly.

Because, you know, you're right - that's not actually what I was saying. I was actually saying that people who abuse children, and grown adults who engage in sexual relationships with other consenting adults are somehow (morally?) 'equivalent.'

Uh huh. That was the whooole point of my story. Glad you were able to read between the lines, clear that up, and out me as the anti-gay bigot that I am. I so much appreciate it.

When you respond to a post about not treating individuals who identify as GLBT by making a direct comparison to child molesters, yeah, you are basically saying that they are morally equivalent. Having a moral objection to the behavior of child molesters, who have violated the rights of another person or persons is understandable; objecting to the attraction/desire/preference/whatever of a person is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing.

The fact that the two are related in your mind is telling. It's reminiscent of the argument proposed by those that are against gay marriage that states that if we allow same-sex marriages, we will also have to allow marriages between children and adults, adults and animals, adults and inanimate objects, etc.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Out of curiosity, what do programs/supervisors do when students express sexist, homophobic, racist, etc., views about clients? Is that something they can actually sanction a student for, besides just marking them down on an evaluation? And would this law prevent homophobic views from negatively impacting clinical competency evals?

 

[JeyRo]

When you respond to a post about not treating individuals who identify as GLBT by making a direct comparison to child molesters, yeah, you are basically saying that they are morally equivalent.

Except, wait - no. No direct comparison was made between the the moral behavior of child molesters and gay people.

Having a moral objection to the behavior of child molesters, who have violated the rights of another person or persons is understandable; objecting to the attraction/desire/preference/whatever of a person is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing.

I agree, actually.

But again, forcing a therapist who fantasizes about throttling a child molester into a room with them to ostensibly deliver some sort of psychotherapeutic service is in the same category of stupid as forcing a homophobe into a room to do the same with a gay person.

The fact that the two are related in your mind is telling.

Ah. Argumentum ad hominem. Lovely.

It's reminiscent of the argument proposed by those that are against gay marriage that states that if we allow same-sex marriages, we will also have to allow marriages between children and adults, adults and animals, adults and inanimate objects, etc.

Uh, no.

 

[JeyRo]

Agreed. And whether or not this is all actually the case (I'd refrain from calling someone's behavior "telling" without actually knowing them; it could just be an honest mistake), it's still important to understand that these sorts of analogies have been made historically to justify discrimination and persecution, so to continue to make them (regardless of intent) is problematic.

So the analogy drawn between two different therapists who are ostensibly being forced to treat clients with different issues, one of their clients happens to victimize others, and the other who does not, and commenting on how it's stupid to force either therapist who has a moral problem with either kind of client to treat them, THAT'S an analogy that was used to justify discrimination and persecution? Is that what you're saying? Is that my "mistake"?

To be fair, I get that mentioning gay people and my exhibitionists in the same sentence probably hits a nerve. But I'm not going to pretend that my analogy was inappropriate or 'mistaken' in any way beyond an aesthetic level just to soothe someone's hurt feelings here.

 

[JeyRo]

Out of curiosity, what do programs/supervisors do when students express sexist, homophobic, racist, etc., views about clients? Is that something they can actually sanction a student for, besides just marking them down on an evaluation? And would this law prevent homophobic views from negatively impacting clinical competency evals?

THESE are actually good questions. Maybe we can table the subject of my apparently just-at-the-surface homophobia and address that.

 

[roubs]

THESE are actually good questions. Maybe we can table the subject of my apparently just-at-the-surface homophobia and address that.

If a program approaches therapy training from a client-centered perspective and a trainee is unwilling to accept supervision/proceed under that framework, do you think a program is justified in sanctioning that trainee? It seems like that is the process these laws aim to forbid. It seems that anyone who lives by a moral code and strongly believes all other humans must abide by that same code is going to run into trouble when faced with clients whose priorities are (sometimes radically) different. I don't mean to aim this argument at religious folks, I know some people who are so anti-religion that they would probably scoff at helping a client take advantage of religious support or discuss anything religious because that isn't under their purview as a secular provider. And I don't mean the secular mental health world should get into religious counseling, but if we value meeting clients where they are then we should aim to take their values as the given start point rather than our own.

 

[JeyRo]

I'm not sure how I can help you see the difference between categorizing clients based on presenting problem (and deciding whether to treat from there) and categorizing clients based on race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc. (and deciding whether to treat from there). To me there is a very clear difference.

I don't think you need to help me see the difference, I just don't see it as relevant, necessarily. But that's cool.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Out of curiosity, what do programs/supervisors do when students express sexist, homophobic, racist, etc., views about clients? Is that something they can actually sanction a student for, besides just marking them down on an evaluation? And would this law prevent homophobic views from negatively impacting clinical competency evals?

Our program kicked a student out for being "culturally insensitive." In this case it was a trumped up charge and the student simply was having a personal conflict with another student (who happened to be a person of color). (Conversely, they never said anything to the student in the program who said some pretty homophobic things and cited her religion as the justification for those statements.)

One thing I have a hard time understanding is how people who feel so strongly about this issue on moral grounds could function in general as a therapist. There are so very many things that my clients do that I feel are wrong or inappropriate, but my job isn't to make everyone have the same values that I do. My job is to work within their framework to find health.

Dr. E

 

[JeyRo]

If a program approaches therapy training from a client-centered perspective and a trainee is unwilling to accept supervision/proceed under that framework, do you think a program is justified in sanctioning that trainee?

Yes.

It seems like that is the process these laws aim to forbid.

If that's the case, then it's a bad law.

It seems that anyone who lives by a moral code and strongly believes all other humans must abide by that same code is going to run into trouble when faced with clients whose priorities are (sometimes radically) different. I don't mean to aim this argument at religious folks, I know some people who are so anti-religion that they would probably scoff at helping a client take advantage of religious support or discuss anything religious because that isn't under their purview as a secular provider. And I don't mean the secular mental health world should get into religious counseling, but if we value meeting clients where they are then we should aim to take their values as the given start point rather than our own.

 

[Always at home]

The question is: where do you draw the line? I have strict morals about hard work. I come from a long line of blue collar workers who worked damn hard in the rain, sleet, snow to earn a living. If my morals were all about hard work and picking yourself up by the bootstraps, should I be allowed not to treat anyone who makes less than $100,000 because they do not meet my standard of working hard? Perhaps I believe them to be lazy. Should a doctoral program respect my moral beliefs and values, and let me treat only rich folk?

Religious beliefs are not the only thing that people hold sacred, and there are many moral values that are not embedded within a religious context that people hold dear.

Again, where do we draw that line?

ps - the above was just an example, and as a way to play devils advocate.

 

[MBellows]

If my morals were all about hard work and picking yourself up by the bootstraps, should I be allowed not to treat anyone who makes less than $100,000 because they do not meet my standard of working hard?

Religious beliefs are not the only thing that people hold sacred, and there are many moral values that are not embedded within a religious context that people hold dear.

I know a lot of hard working blue collar folk that don't make anywhere near 100k. Then again I know a lot of people who make 100k+ who I don't see as working very hard in that sense.

As for the religiosity bit, I've always been confused at why something that has been used to justify the most murder, rape, sexism, human trafficking, enslavement, and pretty much every negative thing humans have ever done to another is protected and you are treated like an ass if you assault it, when religious people often deny empirically supported facts (something akin to psychosis) and aren't locked in asylums. *shrug* crazy world.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[MBellows]

Anecdotal data, I know, and I get just as irritated with the dissonance you've mentioned, but I'm also very reluctant to completely write off all religious individuals just because the majority tend to misuse it.

Don't get me wrong, religion and spirituality can play major positive roles in outcomes. I have a pretty solid idea that it's mostly because group/social involvement is a major moderating factor for most psychological problems, but I don't have any double-blind studies to back that up (the design would be pretty easy though). If I have a client who expresses a need or desire to get involved with a religious group or "find themselves" spiritually, I will help them to the best of my ability and not impede them in that journey, though I may use some socratic questioning to get at why they feel they need to take that it.

 

[JeyRo]

Being homosexual is not an "issue."

Where did I say being homosexual was an "issue"? I said one client is an exhibitionist who abuses children, the other is gay. If I meant to say one was a gay child-abusing exhibionist and one was a heterosexual child abusing exhibitionist, I would have said so.

Could you give it a rest? You seem to be bending over backwards to try to take offense with everything I say. It's getting old.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth and taking things too far,

If that's the case, it seems to be contagious.

and you evidently do not understand what the distinction is, though you clearly believe you do.

If you say so.

No one called you homophobic, so please stop playing the victim.

OK, so what was "telling" (your words) about my analogy that you so pretentiously clucked about a couple posts ago? You then said:

It's reminiscent of the argument proposed by those that are against gay marriage that states that if we allow same-sex marriages, we will also have to allow marriages between children and adults, adults and animals, adults and inanimate objects, etc.

And then yippiyoay just went right out and accused me of drawing a moral equivalence between being homosexual and victimizing children, which would be simply bizarre if it wasn't so insulting (and, I note, is a charge you didn't seem to object to). C'mon. Can we be at least honest enough to identify what rhetorical tactics are being used here? Sure. No one actually labeled me with the word "homophobic," OK.

Also, no need to be condescending.

There's no need for you to be snotty and try to smuggle argumentum ad hominem into the discussion and then play all innocent when called on it.

Several people thought your analogy was a bad one for good reason (actually based in evidence)

That's fine. But that's not the direction (e.g., providing evidence) that you took. Moreover, if you had simply told me that you found the analogy simply insulting (aside from its merits), that would have been a fair point.

you could either come up with a new analogy to support your point equally well, say you think our point is a stupid point (and perhaps provide evidence for why that is), or continue to beat your dead horse. You chose the third option.

No, sorry, you can't have it both ways - you want to have an adult discussion about the merits or lack thereof of my analogy, we can do that. But you chose instead to use intellectually dishonest ad hominem tactics instead (and expect that to be accepted as a valid criticism of this offending analogy of mine). I'm calling you on it, sorry. If you want to start over, I'm fine with that. If you want to move on, that's cool too. Up to you.

 

[Always at home]

I know a lot of hard working blue collar folk that don't make anywhere near 100k. Then again I know a lot of people who make 100k+ who I don't see as working very hard in that sense.

As for the religiosity bit, I've always been confused at why something that has been used to justify the most murder, rape, sexism, human trafficking, enslavement, and pretty much every negative thing humans have ever done to another is protected and you are treated like an ass if you assault it, when religious people often deny empirically supported facts (something akin to psychosis) and aren't locked in asylums. *shrug* crazy world.

I am well aware of your first statement. My anecdote was just an example I was using.

The point was that if someone comes from a long line of hard workers, who make good money, should they be allowed to not treat people of low SES since it may go against their morals and values.

Religious no longer holds that place. That is, you can "assault" religion and you will not be hanged or crucified. Sure you may upset a few people. But I am glad that we have reached a point in time where religion can be scrutinized, as it should be.

 

[MBellows]

Religious no longer holds that place. That is, you can "assault" religion and you will not be hanged or crucified. Sure you may upset a few people. But I am glad that we have reached a point in time where religion can be scrutinized, as it should be.

There are still some parts of the United States that you are taking a risk (be it physical, financial, or just social) by saying anything bad about a specific religion, and places outside the US where the instances that you mentioned still happen.

Not to mention, people don't trust atheists.

All that said, the original topic actually has a point of that demanded attention. Someone asked what a program, internship site, or whatever could do if someone violates those rules. If they don't have a formal contract (which I think APPIC does) then they have to keep them on. However, I think there are exceptions that can be made if they have multicultural respect codified in their employment manual.

 

[JeyRo]

t if you're opposed to homosexuality and you're seeing a client who's presenting with depression or whatever the case may be, then you need to get over yourself and implement treatment, or find another job

Whether this hypothetical anti-gay clinician should find another job or not is certainly a valid point to discuss (gets back to the question of what are our consensus standards for what we think should be allowed in our profession) - but I think exhorting (or forcing) an avowedly anti-gay trainee or clinician to see a gay client because they just need to "get over themself" is foolish and dangerous. This is my only point, really.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[yippiyoay]

JeyRo,

My comment about a moral equivalence between being homosexual and victimizing children was actually directed at erg, not you, yet you felt the need to take offense to it. That and the fact that you, albeit sarcastically, referred to yourself as a bigot, not I or smearedblackink, is what I found to be "telling." I'm not accusing you of being a homophobe, but you definitely seem to be sympathetic to the ones in academia who support bills like the one this post was initally about.

You also just falsely attributed two things I said to smearedblackink.

My point during this whole exchange has been that being gay has nothing to do with child molestation, rape, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, or any other moral issue. The fact that being gay and child molestation and other behaviors that violate the rights of others is so inextricably linked in the minds of quite a few members here is concerning and shows a lack of fundamental understanding about differences between morality and identity, and further promotes bigotry and stigma.

 

[jimmyachance]

JeyRo,

My comment about a moral equivalence between being homosexual and victimizing children was actually directed at erg, not you, yet you felt the need to take offense to it. That and the fact that you, albeit sarcastically, referred to yourself as a bigot, not I or smearedblackink, is what I found to be "telling." I'm not accusing you of being a homophobe, but you definitely seem to be sympathetic to the ones in academia who support bills like the one this post was initally about.

You also just falsely attributed two things I said to smearedblackink.

My point during this whole exchange has been that being gay has nothing to do with child molestation, rape, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, or any other moral issue. The fact that being gay and child molestation and other behaviors that violate the rights of others is so inextricably linked in the minds of quite a few members here is concerning and shows a lack of fundamental understanding about differences between morality and identity, and further promotes bigotry and stigma.

I agree with you but I fear that you will not get anywhere with this conversation. There are people who will argue semantics and other things for the sake of argument, not realizing that the issues contained in this bill are so central to some of our lives that this can be a sore subject. Unfortunately, I am used to privileged people obscuring systems of power and oppression and discrimination because these are simply experiences that they may not have personal exposure to, but by doing so end up silencing the voices of those who are oppressed and reinforcing these systems. C'est la vie. I am just happy to be surrounded by real life colleagues who would never say some of the things that have been said in this thread.

 

[erg923]

I am just happy to be surrounded by real life colleagues who would never say some of the things that have been said in this thread.

What exactly in this thread has been said that's offensive to gays, lesbians, or transgendered individuals? All I have heard said is that some folks may have a great deal of trouble working with these issues (yes, these are "issues" for which people come to therapy, you cant deny that) and that forcing them to do so does no favors to the client...or to the therapist.

 

[JeyRo]

JeyRo,

My comment about a moral equivalence between being homosexual and victimizing children was actually directed at erg, not you, yet you felt the need to take offense to it.

Whatever. His comment drew just as much of a "moral equivalence" between being gay and being a child molester as mine did. To be fair, it seemed like you were happy to turn your rhetoric on me when given the chance - and since both of us mentioned child molesters in the process of drawing analogies - you weren't being particularly clear. And I don't think it matters at this point.

That and the fact that you, albeit sarcastically, referred to yourself as a bigot, not I or smearedblackink, is what I found to be "telling."

Still not able to come right out and say it, eh?

I'm not accusing you of being a homophobe, but you definitely seem to be sympathetic to the ones in academia who support bills like the one this post was initally about.

Why is engaging in flights of fancy and wild imagination about the motivations of people who disagree with you such a hobby with a couple of you?

You also just falsely attributed two things I said to smearedblackink.

Um, OK. You going to actually correct the record, then?

My point during this whole exchange has been that being gay has nothing to do with child molestation, rape, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, or any other moral issue.

Great. Can we make it clear that we all agree that being gay or engaging in homosexual acts doesn't, by itself, victimize other people? I have no problem with that point, none, zero. No one has argued that either. So why are you and smearedblackink apparently so focused on this "moral equivalence" issue? It seems to apply to not a single person in this thread.

However, there's any number of people who think that gay folks go to the same circle of hell that child molesters do (along with people who steal, people who take the Lords name in vain etc). Speaking for erg (since he briefly struck almost the same analogy I did) - I think it's pretty clear that's the point being made. Doesn't mean I or anyone else agrees with that perspective, in fact, I'm an atheist.

The fact that being gay and child molestation and other behaviors that violate the rights of others is so inextricably linked in the minds of quite a few members here is concerning and shows a lack of fundamental understanding about differences between morality and identity, and further promotes bigotry and stigma.

My God. You never stop.

 

[JeyRo]

What exactly in this thread has been said that's offensive to gays, lesbians, or transgendered individuals? All I have heard said is that some folks may have a great deal of trouble working with these issues (yes, these are "issues" for which people come to therapy, you cant deny that) and that forcing them to do so does no favors to the client...or to the therapist.

I think the offensive thing was coming up with examples of other client characteristics or "issues" (don't use that word!) to compare alongside being LGBT when talking about things that may give certain therapists a great deal of trouble when working with clients. Rather than talk about the trouble with the analogical reasoning itself, instead a great deal of effort seems to be being spent to take offense that an analogy is even being attempted.

 

[JeyRo]

I agree with you but I fear that you will not get anywhere with this conversation. There are people who will argue semantics and other things for the sake of argument, not realizing that the issues contained in this bill are so central to some of our lives that this can be a sore subject. Unfortunately, I am used to privileged people obscuring systems of power and oppression and discrimination because these are simply experiences that they may not have personal exposure to, but by doing so end up silencing the voices of those who are oppressed and reinforcing these systems. C'est la vie. I am just happy to be surrounded by real life colleagues who would never say some of the things that have been said in this thread.

I admit it. I like arguing semantics.

semantics plural of se·man·tics (Noun)
Noun

The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

Synonyms

 

[erg923]

I think the offensive thing was coming up with examples of other client characteristics or "issues" (don't use that word!) to compare alongside being LGBT when talking about things that may give certain therapists a great deal of trouble when working with clients. Rather than talk about the trouble with the analogical reasoning itself, instead a great deal of effort seems to be being spent to take offense that an analogy is even being attempted.

I haven't hashed through all that nonsense, but I suffice to say that it was meant to demonstrate that there are a host of other client behaviors that a therapist may find to be in conflict with their religious or moral principles, and we certainly don't force them to work with these other examples...so why would we in this case? Pretty straight forward folks. Relax...

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I'm not accusing you of being a homophobe, but you definitely seem to be sympathetic to the ones in academia who support bills like the one this post was initally about.

How did academics get brought into this.

I think an important issue here is in how the discussion of a referral is addressed. Is it akin to a pharmacist who won't give plan b to a woman proclaiming plan b is murder? Clearly this situation is not ok. I don't know how one would go about addressing this situation, and I'm sure each situation is unique, but assuming it is handled well I think a client working with a tolerant therapist who doesn't have negative thoughts about X aspect of a person would be a better situation for the client.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ridiculous new anti-gay bill passed in TN that "bars public universities from making graduate students in psychology counsel anyone if that would conflict with their "deeply held religious beliefs."

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/...sychology-students-learn-to-pray-away-the-gay

People are not entitled to any given job or position. If the duties of a profession conflict with your personal beliefs you don't demand the profession accommodate you, you just don't go into it.

This law is absolutely absurd....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[MBellows]

People are not entitled to any given job or position. If the duties of a profession conflict with your personal beliefs you don't demand the profession accommodate you, you just don't go into it.

This law is absolutely absurd....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

You know, I'm not entirely sure that the law is going to be effective at what it intends to do anyway. It bars public universities from doing that, it doesn't bar private universities and I don't know if it would say, bar a practicum or internship site from firing an individual, which could, without any regard to the reason for the termination, lead to the university expelling the student.

Really this is just social conservative posturing to defend their religulous position and continue to appease socially conservative voters.

 

[JeyRo]

How did academics get brought into this.

It seems like the people supporting this bill aren't particularly *cough* academic....

I think an important issue here is in how the discussion of a referral is addressed. Is it akin to a pharmacist who won't give plan b to a woman proclaiming plan b is murder? Clearly this situation is not ok.

If I owned such a store I probably wouldn't retain such a pharmacist (lost business!). If such a pharmacist existed in such a community I would think that would create an opening in the market for another pharmacist who didn't have trouble distributing plan B pills.....

I don't know how one would go about addressing this situation, and I'm sure each situation is unique, but assuming it is handled well I think a client working with a tolerant therapist who doesn't have negative thoughts about X aspect of a person would be a better situation for the client.

That's about the size of it. I'm generally (I shouldn't say generally, I would say, almost exclusively) not into making laws to solve social problems. However, I do think that's a worthwhile point to discuss.

 

[JeyRo]

Really this is just social conservative posturing to defend their religulous position and continue to appease socially conservative voters.

Ab-solutely.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You know, I'm not entirely sure that the law is going to be effective at what it intends to do anyway. It bars public universities from doing that, it doesn't bar private universities and I don't know if it would say, bar a practicum or internship site from firing an individual, which could, without any regard to the reason for the termination, lead to the university expelling the student.

Really this is just social conservative posturing to defend their religulous position and continue to appease socially conservative voters.

I didnt really mean to comment from a legal point of view, just one of common sense and decency. The reality is that the law can read whatever the lawmakers make it say until we either vote them out or get a definitive ruling. Now, I am all for religious protection, and for protection of professionals, but I am not for the "protection" of someone to opt into a situation which suddenly forces others to be faced with their personal beliefs.

 

[Qwerk]

JeyRo, for the record, I didn't think you made any homophobic remarks in this thread. I'm a huge queer, and I can see the reason for the comparison with other populations. Gays are a population that cause some practitioners unease (albeit for stupid reasons), and it's probably better that those people don't have gay patients.

However, I still feel that therapists who explicitly refuse to treat large categories of clients because of personal bias shouldn't be accommodated. It has to do with demonstrating that you share the common values of the therapeutic professions. Not wanting to treat a gay client with a relationship issue because you just got out of a bad gay relationship, let's say, or not wanting to treat an elderly Hispanic client because she reminds you of your recently-deceased mother, does not demonstrate that you don't respect the value and dignity of these clients. Rather, it demonstrates that you understand your own limitations. Refusing to treat gays, Hispanics, or elderly clients based on religion, political values, or personal revulsion does suggest that you don't respect them. In other words, it's "specific practice situation" vs. "whole population."

Let me use a recent experience as an example. [All identifying details changed, of course.] I'm part of a committee at my school to which graduate social work students are referred when they don't meet minimum academic or ethical standards in their coursework or fieldwork. A student, "Ron," was referred to the committee last semester for a number of reasons, but one was that he consistently demonstrated cultural insensitivity. On the form for his second-year field placement request, he had wrote that he "strongly preferred" not to work with "HIV/AIDS, the elderly, criminals, prisoners, homeless people" and a few others I can't remember. (In other words, 90% of the clients you'd meet in a social work setting.) He also preferred to work in a "decent neighborhood." In the committee meeting, he demonstrated no insight into why his attitude toward large swaths of the population was a problem. Ron ended up being dismissed for other (very serious) reasons, but this lack of insight influenced our decision.

It would have been much different if working with these populations was a limitation based on his experiences, or if he didn't feel he had the skills to work with them. He might have said "I don't want to work in a nursing home because that doesn't fit with my career goals" or "due to my horrible experiences in prison, I don't want to work in a prison." But he didn't, and I think that illustrates why he wasn't ready to work in mental health.

 

[Pragma]

If a supervisee of mine just lost a parent and thus wants to pass on clients presenting with grief, I am perfectly fine with that. If a supervisee has a problem with Black people and wants to pass on seeing all Black clients, then, to me, that is a concern.

Total side note - grief counseling can have iatrogenic effects.

 

[Pragma]

Aside from the fact that I'm amazed that Wigflip hasn't flipped wigs over this amazes me, it's hard not to point a few things out about this entire thread.

I think we lost wig a few months ago. Not sure where she went.

 

[MBellows]

Total side note - grief counseling can have iatrogenic effects.

Besides the obvious facts that all therapy if not handled properly can have serious iatrogenic effects, I would be very cautious about citing things only evidenced in meta-analyses. Especially when it's a meta analysis resulting in a pathetically low effect size.

http://www.scu.edu/hospice/ADEC%20%20RESEARCH%20HANDOUT.pdf

 

[Pragma]

(C) If you don't think that people should have a license for something that you find personally distasteful, that likely won't hurt the people who they want to make up their part of the market, then you are just as bad as they are for damaging that part of the market's ability to find services.

Glad you said this, because that is how I feel about this issue as well.

 

[Pragma]

Besides the obvious facts that all therapy if not handled properly can have serious iatrogenic effects, I would be very cautious about citing things only evidenced in meta-analyses. Especially when it's a meta analysis resulting in a pathetically low effect size.

http://www.scu.edu/hospice/ADEC%20%20RESEARCH%20HANDOUT.pdf

But I didn't cite anything

 

[MBellows]

But I didn't cite anything

Poor choice of words. Indirectly referenced results from would have been a better phrase. Considering the very limited number of studies that point to this possible effect, and the most often cited one(s) I felt it was safe to assume it was the one you meant.

 

[Pragma]

Again, I appreciate the distinction you make and agree overall. However, that leads to why this legislation is problematic. I know we cannot be all things to all people, but (again, I may be an idealist) responsible practitioners know their limits, and I would like to assume actively seek to gain competence when they need to, whether that's out of personal desire or out of a noted lack of ability with a population that often shows up in their practice.

Who decides what we need to be competent at? Because I have zero interest in doing any therapy, period. I also don't want to learn how to assess children. But am I obligated to seek this knowledge just in case? Or can I safely refer?