Christian psychotherapist found guilty of professional misconduct for reparative therapy

[Ridgerunner]

Denigrating Catholicism, nope. Making fun of denigration, yes.

Nice try. Just remember, I don’t twist the name of your faith to make fun of anything at all. I don’t believe in doing that, and I probably would get kicked off here if I did, and deservedly so.

 

[Kaninchen]

Nice try. Just remember, I don’t twist the name of your faith to make fun of anything at all. I don’t believe in doing that, and I probably would get kicked off here if I did, and deservedly so.

Well, I suppose that yours was a nice try to suggest that my making fun of you was making fun of Catholicism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course. The bad guys have a “secret agenda” (which you can’t prove or find evidence of because they’ve hidden it that well, and they’re all in ‘cahoots’), the good guys are honest, just trying to do the right thing, and have no motive behind their actions and words.

What a strange thing to say. Everybody has any number of agendas. Without them, we would be purposeless in our endeavors and likely wouldn’t bother to engage in any endeavors at all. Certainly, there wouldn’t be political parties, advocacy groups or PACs.

That there are homosexual advocacy groups is beyond any question. Just google it, and you will see. Many are very forthright about what they are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I suppose that yours was a nice try to suggest that my making fun of you was making fun of Catholicism.

Again, nice try. No brass ring, however. Time to drop it.

 

[LemonAndLime]

What a strange thing to say. Everybody has any number of agendas. Without them, we would be purposeless in our endeavors and likely wouldn’t bother to engage in any endeavors at all. Certainly, there wouldn’t be political parties, advocacy groups or PACs.

That there are homosexual advocacy groups is beyond any question. Just google it, and you will see. Many are very forthright about what they are.

You’ve proved my point, but I think you’ll never see how.

I know there are homosexual advocacy groups. But the accusations that the government etc are part of this “homosexualist agenda”… they are ridiculous, and I have seen people assert this in all seriousness. And also said in seriousness that there is a conspiracy.

Also, no groups that are considered “good” e.g. the Church itself, are every considered to have an “agenda”. It’s used as a negative term.

Finally, I don’t believe Kaninchen was insulting to Catholicism.

 

[Kaninchen]

Again, nice try. No brass ring, however. Time to drop it.

You really don’t get it, do you?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The underlying assumption (and ideological fiat) in all of this criticism of her is that it’s “normal” to be homosexual, and that nobody should ever try to change that, even if the homosexual is miserable in that state and want to be straight.

Theres no scientific evidence whatsoever that “conversion therepay” aka “reparative therapy” has ever succeeded in turning a homosexual into a heterosexual. Its important for therapists and psychiatrists to set reasonable and achievable goals for their clients. For homosexual clients disastified with their sexual preference; that means learning to accept their sexuality and/or achieving complete celibacy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’ve proved my point, but I think you’ll never see how.

I know there are homosexual advocacy groups. But the accusations that the government etc are part of this “homosexualist agenda”… they are ridiculous, and I have seen people assert this in all seriousness. And also said in seriousness that there is a conspiracy.

Also, no groups that are considered “good” e.g. the Church itself, are every considered to have an “agenda”. It’s used as a negative term.

Finally, I don’t believe Kaninchen was insulting to Catholicism.

I never said “the government” is part of a homosexualist agenda. Possibly you have seen others say it, but you have not seen me say it.

I will, however, say that this current administration appears supportive of such things as homosexual marriage. It’s refusal to defend DOMA and its declaration of GLBT Month tells me that. That’s not to say the whole government is, and I have not asserted that it is. It’s well known that homosexual advocacy groups have supported this administration’s election. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy. So did NARAL and the executives of GE and Goldman Sachs, and this administration favors them too. That doesn’t make any of it “black helicopter” stuff. It’s politics, and it’s foolish to assert that none of that exists.

And it’s unfortunate that more people in the Catholic Church don’t have more of a Catholic agenda. Right now, it’s pretty much impossible to say there is one in the U.S.

Think what you want about Kanichen’s terminology. I think it’s time to drop it, however.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You really don’t get it, do you?

Time to drop it, Kaninchen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Theres no scientific evidence whatsoever that “conversion therepay” aka “reparative therapy” has ever succeeded in turning a homosexual into a heterosexual. Its important for therapists and psychiatrists to set reasonable and achievable goals for their clients. For homosexual clients disastified with their sexual preference; that means learning to accept their sexuality and/or achieving complete celibacy.

I believe you’re wrong about that, and so does the Catholic Medical Association, whose article I posted earlier. Even a previous poster stated that she changed.

I’m aware that psychology has come to consider that almost any condition or aberration, unless it threatens death or serious bodily harm to others or serious legal consequences to the patient, is “okay” as long as the patient is or can be made comfortable with it. It’s almost entirely value-free, being now only concerned with consequences. Many psychologists and psychiatrists do not agree with that. Some would say (and some do) that it merely exacerbates the problem by artificially enabling it. If a person goes to a psych about being homosexual in the first place, it’s fairly evident that he/she is not happy with it. Perhaps the psych does him/her a favor by trying to persuade him/her that he/she ought to be happy in his/her homosexuality. Perhaps that’s just covering gangrene with a bandaid and calling it good.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I believe you’re wrong about that, and so does the Catholic Medical Association, whose article I posted earlier. Even a previous poster stated that she changed…

The Catholic Medical Association hasn’t provided any scientific evidence that “conversion therapy” succeeds in turning homosexuals into heterosexuals. FMRI testing on alleged “ex-gays” would tell the tale but no such testing has taken place. The only thing that “conversion therapy” has been shown to do, and anecdotally I might add, is succeede in changing behavior not sexual orientation. The only studies which have been conducted relied entirely on self reporting and even then only between 0.04%-0.5%, depending on the study, of participants reported having successfully changed their sexual orientation.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The Catholic Medical Association hasn’t provided any scientific evidence that “conversion therapy” succeeds in turning homosexuals into heterosexuals. FMRI testing on alleged “ex-gays” would tell the tale but no such testing has taken place. The only thing that “conversion therapy” has been shown to do, and anecdotally I might add, is succeede in changing behavior not sexual orientation. The only studies which have been conducted relied entirely on self reporting and even then only between 0.04%-0.5%, depending on the study, of participants reported having successfully changed their sexual orientation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Catholic Medical Association hasn’t provided any scientific evidence that “conversion therapy” succeeds in turning homosexuals into heterosexuals. FMRI testing on alleged “ex-gays” would tell the tale but no such testing has taken place. The only thing that “conversion therapy” has been shown to do, and anecdotally I might add, is succeede in changing behavior not sexual orientation. The only studies which have been conducted relied entirely on self reporting and even then only between 0.04%-0.5%, depending on the study, of participants reported having successfully changed their sexual orientation.

It is unfortunate that political correctness is such a powerful damper on real research into the whole question of homosexuality. Right now, the field is dominated by the Trofim Lysenkos of sexuality, and I certainly trust the CMA more than I do them.

 

[LemonAndLime]

It is unfortunate that political correctness is such a powerful damper on real research into the whole question of homosexuality. Right now, the field is dominated by the Trofim Lysenkos of sexuality, and I certainly trust the CMA more than I do them.

What do you mean by that?

There has been research into whether there is a biological basis for homosexuality, for example. There has been plenty of research. It’s not like someone is saying “We can’t research that!”

Unless you’re suggesting there is some sort of cover-up?

As someone has suggested, your belief in what the CMA states is based on faith rather than fact, as the CMA has failed to back up anything they’ve said. Unless you can show me otherwise?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What do you mean by that?

There has been research into whether there is a biological basis for homosexuality, for example. There has been plenty of research. It’s not like someone is saying “We can’t research that!”

Unless you’re suggesting there is some sort of cover-up?

As someone has suggested, your belief in what the CMA states is based on faith rather than fact, as the CMA has failed to back up anything they’ve said. Unless you can show me otherwise?

Read the article and research the footnotes, then decide whether you find them persuasive or not. I don’t know who said that what the CMA states is based on faith rather than fact, but I personally would accept what it says based on the greater likelihood that it is telling the truth than most of what one reads from the secular sources. If that’s basing my belief on faith, then so be it.

Attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is somehow genetically determined have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Yet, those attempts were funded, and are still being funded. And despite the debunking, there are still those who maintain it as stoutly as a Southern Fundamentalist maintains the literal truth of the bible.

Trofim Lysenko was a Russian geneticist whose (erroneous) views were imposed on the whole Soviet Union for decades because it was politically favored. Research other than along Lysenko’s lines could not be funded. Conclusions inconsistent with those of Lysenko’s were brutally criticized or worse. (sometimes much worse) Nobody in the U.S. is consigned to a Gulag if he questions the conventional wisdoms on homosexuality, but opinions contrary to the conventional wisdoms are airily dismissed at best, and those in the profession (or in the churches) who hold them are severely attacked by those who adhere to the conventional wisdom; a wisdom that is largely political in its origin.

The very article cited in the OP attests to the fact that even attempting to go against the grain of politically correct thought on the subject of homosexuality is a dangerous thing for a psych professional to do. I have talked to psychiatrists and psychologists about that very thing, and those who do not believe homosexuality is immutable and those who do think it is a mental disorder, are very careful about saying it because it’s dangerous, professionally, to do so. The fact that this thread exists additionally demonstrates it.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Read the article and research the footnotes, then decide whether you find them persuasive or not. I don’t know who said that what the CMA states is based on faith rather than fact, but I personally would accept what it says based on the greater likelihood that it is telling the truth than most of what one reads from the secular sources. If that’s basing my belief on faith, then so be it.

Faith is believing in something without the need for proof. I would be careful about blindly following anyone without being informed. Which article and which footnotes?

Attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is somehow genetically determined have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Yet, those attempts were funded, and are still being funded. And despite the debunking, there are still those who maintain it as stoutly as a Southern Fundamentalist maintains the literal truth of the bible.

Source?

They’re probably still being funded because people want to know. The only one who want to prove it isn’t are those like the CMA, many secular scientists/sociologists/psychologists are genuinely interested without feeling that they want a particular result. Don’t make the assumption that every secular professional is pro-gay.

Trofim Lysenko was a Russian geneticist whose (erroneous) views were imposed on the whole Soviet Union for decades because it was politically favored. Research other than along Lysenko’s lines could not be funded. Conclusions inconsistent with those of Lysenko’s were brutally criticized or worse. (sometimes much worse) Nobody in the U.S. is consigned to a Gulag if he questions the conventional wisdoms on homosexuality, but opinions contrary to the conventional wisdoms are airily dismissed at best, and those in the profession (or in the churches) who hold them are severely attacked by those who adhere to the conventional wisdom; a wisdom that is largely political in its origin.

So are you suggesting that in the USA, the government is restricting scientists or what they can or cannot research using the same force as they did in the USSR?

The very article cited in the OP attests to the fact that even attempting to go against the grain of politically correct thought on the subject of homosexuality is a dangerous thing for a psych professional to do. I have talked to psychiatrists and psychologists about that very thing, and those who do not believe homosexuality is immutable and those who do think it is a mental disorder, are very careful about saying it because it’s dangerous, professionally, to do so. The fact that this thread exists additionally demonstrates it.

They broke the terms of their employment. I believe a similar thing would happen in the USA, and if I as a nurse started to try and convert my patients in my care I would be disciplined.

If they don’t like the terms of their employment, then tough - find another job. Trying to evangelise vulnerable people in your care is an abuse of trust. The ban is there for a reason, and I don’t think it’s part of some conspiracy or agenda like you’re suggesting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Faith is believing in something without the need for proof. I would be careful about blindly following anyone without being informed. Which article and which footnotes?

Source?

They’re probably still being funded because people want to know. The only one who want to prove it isn’t are those like the CMA, many secular scientists/sociologists/psychologists are genuinely interested without feeling that they want a particular result. Don’t make the assumption that every secular professional is pro-gay.

So are you suggesting that in the USA, the government is restricting scientists or what they can or cannot research using the same force as they did in the USSR?

They broke the terms of their employment. I believe a similar thing would happen in the USA, and if I as a nurse started to try and convert my patients in my care I would be disciplined.

If they don’t like the terms of their employment, then tough - find another job. Trying to evangelise vulnerable people in your care is an abuse of trust. The ban is there for a reason, and I don’t think it’s part of some conspiracy or agenda like you’re suggesting.

Article cited in Post #20 and footnotes therein.

I am not saying research is hampered in the U.S. in the same way it was in the USSR, and never did say that. There are pressures that can be brought to bear that are far less draconian than in the USSR, but are still effective. In the UK, obviously, this psychologist was severely sanctioned, and not for “violating the terms of her contract either”, at least not as stated in the article. She was cited for trying to change the provocateur’s orientation, or at least counseling him in that direction. And, of course, she is ordered to undergo "training’ to correct her erroneous notions. Failing that, she will get her ticket punched.

In comparing to your trying to convert a nursing patient, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. I assume you meant convert the person’s religion. That’s not what this psychologist was trying to do. The “conversion”, at least as appears from the article, is from homosexuality to heterosexuality, not from, say, Judaism to Anglicanism. In Britain, it appears, at least with the NHS, it is simply believed illegitimate from a psychological standpoint to think a homosexual can be cured of that orientation, just as it would be illigitimate from a medical standpoint to attempt a cancer cure with tincture of gentian violet or eye of newt. It is because the psych community (or at least those in the NHS) doesn’t think it’s legitimate that it then concludes it must be from some other source, such as religion or some idiosyncrasy on the psychologist’s part.

What it ignores, of course, is the possibility that the psych might just be right. She certainly isn’t alone in thinking it. But she did, it appears, run afoul of the “official psychology” that decrees homosexuality is innate and incurable. It was fruitless, of course, to try to counsel the ‘journalist’ because he came in there to ambush the psychologist and didn’t want help at all. But it is not necessarily fruitless in all cases. One might attribute changes to “emerging from a phase” or whatever one might want to call it. (It may be noted that another person in another thread testified to her change from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and she doesn’t call it a “phase”.) But regardless of what one calls it, changing from homosexual practice and self-identification to heterosexual is, in fact, a change, and it’s very obviously possible. In some cases, of course, it might not be, just as some people with a DSM diagnosis of some sort receive effective help in the psych process while others with the very same diagnosis do not.

And the very fact that the DSM is anything but definitive about many things (read it, and you’ll see) ought to make anyone a bit skeptical about any kind of iron-clad “official” doctrine concerning psychological diagnosis and cure. It also changes frequently.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Article cited in Post #20 and footnotes therein.

I am not saying research is hampered in the U.S. in the same way it was in the USSR, and never did say that. There are pressures that can be brought to bear that are far less draconian than in the USSR, but are still effective. In the UK, obviously, this psychologist was severely sanctioned, and not for “violating the terms of her contract either”, at least not as stated in the article. She was cited for trying to change the provocateur’s orientation, or at least counseling him in that direction. And, of course, she is ordered to undergo "training’ to correct her erroneous notions. Failing that, she will get her ticket punched.

Actually, as she worked for the NHS, she broke the rules.

So you do believe there is a conspiracy then?

In comparing to your trying to convert a nursing patient, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. I assume you meant convert the person’s religion. That’s not what this psychologist was trying to do. The “conversion”, at least as appears from the article, is from homosexuality to heterosexuality, not from, say, Judaism to Anglicanism. In Britain, it appears, at least with the NHS, it is simply believed illegitimate from a psychological standpoint to think a homosexual can be cured of that orientation, just as it would be illigitimate from a medical standpoint to attempt a cancer cure with tincture of gentian violet or eye of newt. It is because the psych community (or at least those in the NHS) doesn’t think it’s legitimate that it then concludes it must be from some other source, such as religion or some idiosyncrasy on the psychologist’s part.

It’s not just within the NHS. Private hospitals and most of the Western world believe it cannot be cured (with evidence to prove it, unlike the CMA who are capable of carrying out research you know, unless you’re going to suggest they’re being stopped?)

What it ignores, of course, is the possibility that the psych might just be right. She certainly isn’t alone in thinking it. But she did, it appears, run afoul of the “official psychology” that decrees homosexuality is innate and incurable. It was fruitless, of course, to try to counsel the ‘journalist’ because he came in there to ambush the psychologist and didn’t want help at all. But it is not necessarily fruitless in all cases. One might attribute changes to “emerging from a phase” or whatever one might want to call it. (It may be noted that another person in another thread testified to her change from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and she doesn’t call it a “phase”.) But regardless of what one calls it, changing from homosexual practice and self-identification to heterosexual is, in fact, a change, and it’s very obviously possible. In some cases, of course, it might not be, just as some people with a DSM diagnosis of some sort receive effective help in the psych process while others with the very same diagnosis do not.

And the very fact that the DSM is anything but definitive about many things (read it, and you’ll see) ought to make anyone a bit skeptical about any kind of iron-clad “official” doctrine concerning psychological diagnosis and cure. It also changes frequently.

So where is this proof again? Can you post from the CMA?

And I repeat - the woman broke a professional regulation rule, she knew she she signed up for, so she is at fault.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I had a look at post #20.

First of all it’s more than 10 years old, which means its instantly out of date. A lot happens in 10 years.

But even worse than that, some of its supporting evidence dates back to the 1960s! Techniques, our understanding of psychology/biology, have all changed a lot since then.

Also, a lot of the evidence is contraversial and from the 1970s when women were at work and men didn’t like it - a lot of it is putting blame on the mother.

My general comment - this article isn’t actually a study, it’s an essay which picks and choose its articles and has no criticial analysis, e.g. it picks only one viewpoint and does not criticise/discuss the research methods on an subjective basis and definately does not include any opposing evidence.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, as she worked for the NHS, she broke the rules.

So you do believe there is a conspiracy then?

It’s not just within the NHS. Private hospitals and most of the Western world believe it cannot be cured (with evidence to prove it, unlike the CMA who are capable of carrying out research you know, unless you’re going to suggest they’re being stopped?)

So where is this proof again? Can you post from the CMA?

And I repeat - the woman broke a professional regulation rule, she knew she she signed up for, so she is at fault.

The article says the woman has appealed, so it’s not finally determined that she broke any rules. At this point, the NHS people say she did based on their own “preconceived notion” that homosexual orientation cannot be cured when, very obviously, it does happen.
What this article really demonstrates, at least thus far, is the hassle people have to go through if they don’t accept politically correct holy writ, and that there are “agents provocateurs” who will lie in order to drag them before the Sanhedrin of preconceived notions of another sort.