Which kind of therapy are you referring to?
Submitted by Mark on February 11 2002 23:25:36
In reply to The Devil's Advocate submitted by Heather on February 11 2002 16:28:49
|
My post was not about "conversion therapy" in general, nor about "reparative therapy", a relatively humane approach. I was talking specifically about aversion therapy and drug therapy ("chemical castration"). The issue isn't only that of consent, although that's certainly an important part. It's that of the ethics of using these crude, unproven, and dangerous methods that were rejected 30 years ago for gay men, that attach feelings of pain and shame to one's sexual and affectionate feelings, that are known to cause serious emotional and physical side effects, and are used on teenagers and adults under pressure or coersion because of whom they are attracted to, not because they are violent. Because they are used in the hidden world of the criminal justice system on people who are not considered fully human, they are not subject to the oversight and professional and ethical standards that most mental health treatments are. I doubt that the article you link to says that some gays can change as a result of aversion therapy, plethysmographs, or chemical castration administered under the authority of the police. I did acknowledged that some clients and therapists report change due to the much more humane reparative therapy. I was not criticizing that approach, but was reporting what the profession says about it. My point there was that the profession rejects even this humane approach, but accepts the rather brutal approach used on boys (and men) who are attracted to younger boys. I also said that this approach is often used specifically due to their attraction to younger boys, not because they are violent. Mark |
Follow ups: