APA to Review its Gay Counseling Policy

According to the AP, the American Psychological Association (APA) has established a six member task force to review its current policy on counseling gays. The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative, or conversion, therapy which is aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation.

Conservative religious groups around the country are up in arms over what they view as a “pre-ordained” conclusion because the task force is packed with anti-reparative therapy individuals.

The Conservative position is that if someone with a homosexual orientation, because of religious or other issues, wants to try and change their sexual orientation, then psychologists and psychiatrists should respect those wishes and attempt to help with reparative therapy. The gay and lesbian rights position is that such therapy is not only ineffective but psychologically harmful especially when applied to minors at the insistence of their parents.

The director of the APA's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, insisted the panel would base its findings on scientific research, not ideology. He defended the decision to reject certain conservative applicants to the task force by saying "We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality — they don't fit into our world view."

Gee, that sounds a little strong! I suspect what the director means is that one can’t get around the problem, that anyone with a religious conviction that homosexuality is a choice and sinful, has almost got to ignore or rationalize any scientific data which contradicts that belief. I would hope a similar concern would be recognized in having a gay member on the panel.

But from the article it sounds like even folks that hold non-religion based positions that reparative therapy, when the patient wants it, should be available have been excluded. In other words, you’re damn straight the panel is packed to come to the conclusion that reparative therapy is harmful.

This is a tricky one. If reparative therapy is potentially harmful then aren’t doctors, since they should follow Galen’s advice to “do no harm”, constrained from offering it? How do you insure that members of any review panel, for any situation, rely on the facts and not preconceived notions? The answer is that you can’t. The most you can do is try to avoid including the extremists and demand that the rationale for the conclusions be documented and recommendations justified.

To be honest with you, I don’t know what the data indicates. I would suspect that, if sexual orientation is either genetic or hormonal in nature as the evidence seems to say, then reparative therapy would be, in most cases, pretty much an effort in futility. If you are told that one can change if one really wants to, and oh by the way, one’s “immortal soul” is in jeopardy of spending eternity in a lake of fire if you don’t change, and you can’t, what would that do to your self-esteem? I suspect the old self-esteem would take quite a shellacking, leading to depression, which in turn could lead to contemplations of suicide. Precisely what opponents of reparative therapy claim is the problem.

On the other side is the argument that one should respect an individual’s values and provide the therapy if the patient wants it. I have two questions for supporters of this position. First, how come the same logic doesn’t apply to abortion access? Second, it’s one thing for an adult to choose potentially harmful therapy, but what about a minor? Do parents have the right to make that decision for their children? I would say the answer to that question should be no.

I suspect the APA task force will recommend against reparative therapy. Let’s hope that they do so based upon sound science and not political principle.