Here’s a cite I pulled up for an old thread about changing sexual orientation:
Since this study involved interviewing people who had undergone “ex-gay” therapy, it could not address the actual suicide rate among this population. (Not without a Ouija board, at least.) A quick search didn’t produce a good figure for the percentage of Americans who have ever attempted suicide, but this CDC datasheet (PDF) says “An estimated 1 million adults (0.5% of the U.S. adult population) reported making a suicide attempt in the past year.” More than ten times as many (5.4%) of the participants in the Shidlo and Schroeder study had attempted suicide after undergoing “ex-gay” therapy. Even if we exclude the three with a previous history of suicide attempts, that’s still 4%. I realize there are a number of problems with this comparison and wouldn’t call it solid evidence of anything, but it’s suggestive.
More importantly, participants in this study were nearly six times as likely to say that “ex-gay” therapy had caused them lasting harm than they were to say that it had helped them.
So, if I have cancer, get chemo and it “doesn’t work”, I can sue my doctor? If I go to a psychiatrist to treat me for depression, and I’m still depressed, I can sue her?
You really don’t think the people using this type of therapy don’t have some sort of disclaimer they make their patients sign?
I don’t see why the state should be deciding this. Why isn’t it the professional organization9s) that license the individuals? Should the state be able to outlaw unconventional treatments that might not do any good?I guess it depends. But they’re not even doing that here. To me the problem is that they are acting as medical experts. I think it should be left to the licensing body itself. The same way they might not allow their professionals to perform exorcisms or treating sickness via leeches, it seems that is where the door should be shut.
What I pointed out is that the court mentioned that the legislature relied on professional opinions, including those of a task force of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and other professional organizations, which arguably provide a reasonable indication of a consensus among current medical and psychological practitioners that conversion therapy may be harmful. States have a lot of discretion when exercising their police powers to regulate mental health providers, especially so when, as the court found here, rational basis review applies. Whether you feel this does or does not meet the standard required to override the First Amendment, this is the standard that is used.
In any event, the court points that there is a continuum of the right to free speech and that the law in question implicates the end of the continuum that is least protected, that of the professional regulation of conduct. If a medical doctor licensed by the State of CA practices phrenology, do you think the legislature and the medical board are within their power to regulate this practice by medical doctors that they license?
Like I said, the 9th Cir decision goes into some discussion about the history of homosexuality and its treatment under the mental health profession. It also points that that homosexuality has been removed from the DSM and that the APA declared that homosexuality is not an illness. The law must be viewed in large part under this light.
But it is some valid evidence so thanks for citing it.
I would like to know if they did a comparison study. I think it’s seems obvious that people who participated in gay conversion therapy are the gay people who are most unhappy about the sexual orientation. So comparing them to gay people who didn’t want gay conversion therapy has a degree of selection bias - these gay people were presumably happier with their situation in general.
I think a fair trial would be to find a pool of gay people who were unhappy enough about their homosexuality to seek therapy. Some would presumably choose gay conversion therapy and some would choose what I guess you would call acceptance therapy - therapy designed to help them accept themselves as gay rather than seek to convert them to being straight. By doing interviews from both groups before and after a period of therapy, you’d have some evidence of which therapy made people happier.
Valid points on the confirmation bias, but my guess is you aren’t going to find any good studies (at least done in the last 20 years or so) as I doubt any respected medical professional would participate in such a study that I think everyone knows is BS and only preys on the vulnerable.
Since homosexuality isn’t considered a disorder anymore - I don’t think any ethics boards are going to support doing studies.
I guess if you had someone who seemed mentally healthy - and really wanted to change his orientation - some doctors might help, but I really don’t know.
Are there any gay atheists that are trying to do conversion therapy? I could see some wanting to do so if they had strong family pressure to get married I guess.
Yes, you can. Your lawsuit probably won’t be successful unless you can show that the treatment never works, and that the doctor knows that the treatment never works, and charged you money for it anyway. That would be a hard case to make for chemo or psychiatric treatment for depression.
Conversion therapy? Not so much.
Anyway, lawsuits are a bit of a hijack, as the issue at hand is state regulation.
The state IS the licensing body - specifically, the CA Board of Behavioral Sciences. I think you are confusing accrediting bodies with licensing bodies; the latter are invariably government agencies. For constitutional purposes, the issue is not whether the law (or direct legislative control versus executive control) is a good idea. It’s whether it’s “rationally related to a legitimate government interest”.
The Second Amendment (following the gun shop example) protects the right of an individual to own and carry firearms, not the right of a store to sell them. Any constitutional imperative barring a blanket ban on gun sales stems from the individual’s right to practical exercise of his keep-and-bear right, or some more esoteric theory like the dormant commerce clause (states can’t infringe on Congress’ mandate to regulate interstate commerce).
The First Amendment prevents the state from requiring licensees to do things that violate their freedom of expression and religion. It doesn’t stop the state from preventing them from doing things in their professional capacities. That’s why pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense birth control, but can be enjoined by the state from telling people that birth control will kill them and send them to hell (for example).
Here is a well cited report from the APA on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (which I believe was used to inform CA legislators in drafting SB 1172). Warning it is 138 pages, but very thorough and well cited. On page 34-35 is review on SOCE research efficacy and on page 59 presents SOCE positive outcomes versus negative outcomes.
As for claims about comparison studies between gay people who are unhappy with their homosexuality and seek SOCE versus gay people who are unhappy with their sexuality and seek acceptance therapy - my understanding from just skimming the APA report is people who seek out SOCE are overwhelmingly conservatively religious. And that the degree of unhappiness and potential for harm is related to the conflict between one’s sexual identity and one’s religious identity.
From page 45:
From page 46:
From page 54:
Or you can skip all of that and go to page 90-91 for conclusions:
No, most diet programs do in fact work, if you follow them exactly. The problem is generally that it’s really hard to follow them. But the maker of the diet plan can hardly be liable for their customers’ failure to follow the directions.
This is about in line with other behavioral change interventions. Weight loss or smoking cessation programs also usually have around a 10% long term success rate.
Yes, I used the wrong term. I should have said "accrediting body. But my question stands. Shouldn’t it be the accrediting body that makes rulings on particular procedures?
Perhaps. But that’s a matter of public policy, not a constitutional question. In any event, California may not require a licensee to be affiliated with an accrediting body. To practice psychotherapy you generally only need to meet educational requirements.
I’d say it moves into a constitutional question when someone with the proper psychiatric credentials is prevented from offering a flavor of assistance to patients by the government. He should be able to share his thinking and offer any line of care he feels appropriate. I personally don’t see how this particular therapy might be all that helpful for most homosexuals. But there could be someone who is more confused about their sexual orientation and that therapy along the lines in question might be perfectly reasonable. And maybe even quite helpful to the person. For the government to nix it seems unnecessary and possibly unhelpful. They are, in essence, claiming that the method is NEVER appropriate for anyone. That seems to be a constitutional problem for the therapist’s right of free speech and preventing a patient from having his therapist from exploring a therapy that might actually be helpful. Though I’m not sure which specific constitutional right that would fall under.
I’m not posting this to express disagreement with your premises about SOCE and gender reassignment surgery. Just to illustrate the principle that it never hurts to get off your ass and provide a cite.
