Pretty much what Zagadka said. If there is evidence a certain line of treatment may have effectiveness, one’s duty is not to blanket condemn but to further study why it is effective here versus not there and tailor the correct approach based on new findings.
However all of this rests of evidence solely provided by a flawed study. Without this evidence, and, as I said in my last post, significant evidence that reparative therapy can lead to major depression or suicide, psychologists would be remiss in ever recommending such a path for their patients. You do not simply leap into such a path without indication that significant good is likely to come weighed in the balance with significant potential harm.
I would like to address the myths surrounding Dr. Spitzer. Although he was the committee chairman, he was never really the pivotal force for change. And he has always believed in therapy for sexual orientation.
Also, see page 14 of the following pdf file “Peer Commentaries on Spitzer (2003),” from the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 419–468 in which Jack Drescher, MD, provides evidence that Spitzer’s stance on this issue has essentially remained the same over the years. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Herek/courses/Library/Spitzer_commentaries_2003.pdf
Truly Dr. Spitzer is not the impartial, “gay rights supporter who finally began to question his own decision” that various so-called “ex-gay” organizations are portraying him as.
This is not therapy, it is brainwashing. How would one distinguish between this program and one in which straight people were encouraged to “turn homosexual”?