Contested issues with personal significance and global relevance

Conversion therapy is a topic that has both critics and supporters and has been recently in the news ever since California came out with a law banning conversion therapy for teenagers and children (Buchanan, 2012). Critics say that the therapy is an example of pseudo-science that it forcibly tries to change the gay's person's sexual tendencies and that, since this is unnatural and impossible, only eventuates in guilt and depression. Supporters, on the other hand, maintain that, as like every other therapy, conversion therapy cannot be expected to help all. More so, there are some individuals who do wish to change their sexual tendencies and, therefore, they should be enabled to sign up for conversion therapy would they so wish. Finally, the government has no right to interfere unless conversion therapy has been shown to be destructive to all clients; and this is has not yet evidenced itself to be.

What is conversion therapy?

Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy, is a particular method that purports to be able to change the sexual orientation of a person (American Psychological Association, February 2008).

The therapy itself has long roots and can be traced to three different phases: the early Freudian period when psychoanalysts and the lay culture largely approved of conversion therapy since either thought homosexuality to be unnatural (although Freud himself disagreed on this point);, the mid period when disproval towards conversion therapy non-existent, and a post-Stonewall period when the mainstream medical and psychiatric profession completely reversed its tone and condemned conversion therapy (Just the Facts Coalition, 1999). Although Freud did not consider homosexuality to be pathological, psychoanalysis's of the 1920s judged homosexuality to be unnatural and classified it as an illness warranting treatment. This stance was aggravated in the 1930s and 1950s where American psychoanalysts such as Bergler insisted that homosexuality was a perversion and could be cured in at least 90% of the time. Those who failed to be cured lacked the will to do so. Bergler and others received notoriety for applying harsh behavioral methods and bullying homosexuals into conversion in order to get them to conform.

The stigma of homosexuality as a pathology continued into the '60s and '70s until pressure from gay activists forced the APA to reclassify homosexuality as an illness in 1987 and to remove it form the DMSV (ibid).

Preeminent scientific opinion not only considers homosexuality to be natural, but also consider it insensible to change. United States Surgeon General, David Satcher, for instance stated that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). However, Spitzer had once conducted a study that showed that highly determined individuals could change their orientation with some form of reparative therapy. He since then recanted his study and apologized to the gay community. The American Psychological Association (2009) similarly stated that:

It encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation and concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation

Dispute arises when certain organizations, mental health professionals and pastoral care providers, attempt to treat homosexuality by methods that involve aversive treatments (such as nauseating drugs accompanied with homoerotic stimuli), masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as groups support and prayers (Haldeman 2002). Conversion therapy strongly believes that homosexuality can be reconditioned and uses several techniques to set about to do so.

There are about 70 therapists who currently practice conversion therapy in 20 states of the U.S.A.

Argument for Conversion Therapy

Some state that they have wished to change their sex; that being religious, let's say, they have wished to have 'normal' heterosexual relationships; that conversion therapy has enabled them to do so, and that, this being the case, it would be wrong to unilaterally ban the therapy (as is being done in California).

Mark Yarhouse and Warren Throckmorton, for instance, published "Ethical Issues in Attempts to Ban Reorientation Therapies" in 2002 which argues that the therapy should be allowed because it some people want it and it has helped a certain amount of people. According to them, studies show a 30% mean rate to success. They used the seed principle of "Do no harm" to argue for conversion therapy. Haldeman (2002) argued similarly:

For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin... And if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged.( pp. 260 -- 264).

Conversion therapy should be permitted as alternative as long as the client is informed of the risks and the procedure. NARTH moreover adds that a counselor who refrains from telling his client about this option may be even acting unethically, particularly if his client requests a method of change.

Argument against Conversion Therapy

Most studies find that sexual orientation cannot be changed and that attempts to do so results in guilt, depression, and sometimes suicide. Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) interviewed 150 respondents and found that the overwhelming number (88%!) of participants who had attended conversion therapy failed to maintain their change following the group's completion; only 3% managed to maintain their commitment. Many of the participants, moreover, had gone through conversion therapy for many years, and others felt guilty that they had 'failed'. Results included depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, social isolation, hyper vigilance of one's sexual mannerisms, fear of being a child abuser and poor self-esteem.

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling Association caution against ignorantly entering the therapy and insist that any counselor who happens to practice conversion therapy is obliged to inform clients that the system is unproven.

Conclusion

Conversion therapy is a type of therapy that is open to people who wish to change their homosexual tendencies. Critics however call it pseudoscientific and harmful, whilst advocates say that, similar to all therapies, it is not helpful to some whilst helping others. It may be that any therapy that has been scientifically documented to harm people should not be allowed, even though it may have helped others. Conversion therapy may fall into this criteria, but for this to be proved one needs more reliable scientific research on the subject. We cannot simply experiment with people as we experiment with animals. Therapies should only be given when they have unanimously been proved helpful to the vast majority of people. When the reverse is the case, they should be retracted.