Conversion Therapy Cons
Throughout the majority of the United States, it’s currently legal to expose LGBT minors against their will to an extreme and intense type of therapy on the basis that homosexuality is a pathology that must be cured. This rightfully worrisome therapy is commonly referred to as conversion therapy. Conversion therapy, also referred to as reformative or reorientation therapy, is a wide variety of interventions implemented onto an individual who identifies as nonheterosexual with the goal of changing the individual’s sexuality to strictly heterosexual. Currently, only a measly six states listed as follows have laws banning conversion therapy on minors: Oregon, California, New Mexico, Vermont, Illinois, and New Jersey. Although America has made
…show more content…
massive strides toward equality and tolerance, in many ways our society is still stuck in a primal mindset where minorities are involved and conversion therapy is a prime example of this. Conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors for three main reasons: it’s medically unnecessary, it’s potentially harmful, and it’s professionally unethical.
To begin, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors because it’s medically unnecessary in that its basis is formed from false assumptions and there isn’t any valid evidence that it’s an effective treatment.
Cramer et al., a group of professors who all have a Ph.D. in psychology, explain these false assumptions in their piece by stating that conversion therapy is based on the idea that nonheterosexuality is pathological (94). In other words, any sexual orientation that isn’t heterosexual is an illness that needs to be cured which is incorrect. Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a disease by the medical community since 1973 (American Psychiatric Association). After reviewing empirical evidence, the APA took a vote and decided to remove homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) which is the complete manual for all psychiatric disorders that are officially recognized. Since homosexuality isn’t an illness, the foundation of conversion therapy is fictitious. Also, there isn’t any evidence that conversion therapy is effective making the therapy medically unnecessary. Moss, whose piece was published in the legal journal Family Court Review, claims there is no evidence that any variation of this type of therapy is effective since there is very little data existing on the subject and the studies that do exist have extreme validity errors (319-320). That is to say, there is no conclusive evidence that conversion therapy is successful or beneficial to patients who are subjected to it. Interventions that have no medical backing are subject to having unknown and unpredictable effects. Minors are an especially vulnerable group since the brain is still developing during these years. With this in mind, it’s completely reckless to subject a minor to an empirically inconclusive therapy. The lack of evidence and validity of conversion therapy alone should warrant a ban on the use of it on
minors.
Additionally, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors is because it has the potential to do a lot of harm to the patients undergoing it. Behavioral methods, biological interventions, and religion-based methods are the three major methods used in conversion therapy and include but aren’t limited to the specific tactics as follows: masturbatory reconditioning, aversion therapy, abstinence training, hormone therapy, use of prayer, and exorcism (Cramer et al 95). These methods cause extreme adverse side effect and as a result harm to the individual experiencing them. Common side effects include impotence, post-traumatic stress disorder, elevated depression and anxiety, self-hatred, internalized homophobia, and increased frequency of suicide ideation and attempts (Cramer et al. 101-102; Hein and Matthews 32). According to Hein and Matthews, who both have a Ph.D. and studied psychology, LGBT individuals are generally subjected to more emotional, physical, and sexual abuse than those who are heterosexual (30). Consequently, the LGBT community is a commonly targeted minority group who already has a higher risk for abuse. To add to the already existing risk any one of these potential side effects would be extremely dangerous to the health and wellbeing of the individual. Equally worrisome, minors are often forced into conversion therapy when their parents reject their sexual orientation. LGBT minors who experience rejection from their parents and don’t have an advocate are at an even higher risk for physical abuse and health issues (Moss 318-319). Internalized homophobia also becomes an issue since those who are subjected to conversion therapy are there under the impression that LGBT sexual orientation is an illness and therefore self-stigmatize. The dangerous side effects individuals are exposed to makes the continuation of conversion therapy being legal a danger to the lives and health of many LGBT minors.
Conversely, those who support conversion therapy cling to the three major arguments that there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, parents do have the right to govern their children, and religious rights would be infringed on if there was a ban. Firstly, many supporters of conversion therapy argue that since there is no concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be possible to change an individual’s sexuality to that of a heterosexual. It’s true that researchers have yet to identify a specific genome that codes for sexual orientation, but there have been studies done that point to there being a genetic component to sexuality. For example, in 2001, a study was conducted with twin and non-twin sibling pairs to analyze whether genetics or upbringing play a bigger role in sexual orientation. The study found that it’s highly likely that genetic factors play an important role in an individual’s sexuality (Kendler et al. 4). Secondly, those in favor of conversion therapy often argue that parents do have the right to make medical decisions for their children. By this logic, a ban on conversion therapy for minors would undermine the rights of the parents. Although this is usually accurate, parents don’t have the right to subject their child’s health or safety to danger (Moss 323). Lastly, supporters argue that the religious rights of the patient and the medical professional would be infringed upon if conversion therapy was banned for minors. This argument cites the idea that medical professionals should be allowed to practice in a way that lines up with their religious beliefs and patients should have the option to seek medical treatment that lines up with their religious beliefs. The issue with this line of reasoning is that a law against using conversion therapy on minors is religiously objective (Moss 323). That is to say, the law itself has no specific religious basis in that it wouldn’t be banned because of specific religious reasons and is, therefore, lacking prejudicial intentions.
Lastly, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors because it’s extremely unethical for medical professions to practice. The majority of accredited medical associations oppose conversion therapy and warn professions against trying to change an individual’s sexuality. The American Psychological Association released a statement about sexuality and attempts to change it. They confirmed that same-sex attraction is a normal type of sexuality and that efforts to change sexuality should be refrained from (American Psychological Association). The American Psychiatric Association also stated that there is not enough evidence for sexuality conversion attempts to be tried (Moss 318). These aren’t the only two associations that have publicly opposed conversion therapy almost every officially recognized medical organization has warned against the use of conversion therapy. The use of conversion therapy also directly goes against the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines in three distinct areas: unfair discrimination, avoiding harm, and avoidance of false or deceptive statements (Cramer et al. 103-105). First, conversion therapy unfairly discriminates against LGBT individuals by treating their sexuality as a pathology that they need to be cured of. Second, the methods used to attempt to change the patient’s sexuality psychologically harm the patient. Third and finally, the therapy is deceptive in that a parent may be misled to believe that there is evidence it works when in reality there is an extreme lack of empirical data to support this claim. All together, any medical professional who practices conversion therapy is going against the ethical guidelines they agreed to when they received their license to practice.
Ultimately, conversion therapy needs to be banned in every state across America. Conversion therapy is medically unnecessary since it’s based on false assumptions and there isn’t any evidence it’s effective or safe. Also, there are dangerous side effects that are highly likely to cause harm to the patient undergoing the therapy. Furthermore, conversion therapy has been discredited by the major medical associations and is extremely unethical. The remaining forty-four states who don’t currently have any laws against subjecting minors to conversion therapy need to model a law after the six states that do ban it.
massive strides toward equality and tolerance, in many ways our society is still stuck in a primal mindset where minorities are involved and conversion therapy is a prime example of this. Conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors for three main reasons: it’s medically unnecessary, it’s potentially harmful, and it’s professionally unethical.
To begin, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors because it’s medically unnecessary in that its basis is formed from false assumptions and there isn’t any valid evidence that it’s an effective treatment.
Cramer et al., a group of professors who all have a Ph.D. in psychology, explain these false assumptions in their piece by stating that conversion therapy is based on the idea that nonheterosexuality is pathological (94). In other words, any sexual orientation that isn’t heterosexual is an illness that needs to be cured which is incorrect. Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a disease by the medical community since 1973 (American Psychiatric Association). After reviewing empirical evidence, the APA took a vote and decided to remove homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) which is the complete manual for all psychiatric disorders that are officially recognized. Since homosexuality isn’t an illness, the foundation of conversion therapy is fictitious. Also, there isn’t any evidence that conversion therapy is effective making the therapy medically unnecessary. Moss, whose piece was published in the legal journal Family Court Review, claims there is no evidence that any variation of this type of therapy is effective since there is very little data existing on the subject and the studies that do exist have extreme validity errors (319-320). That is to say, there is no conclusive evidence that conversion therapy is successful or beneficial to patients who are subjected to it. Interventions that have no medical backing are subject to having unknown and unpredictable effects. Minors are an especially vulnerable group since the brain is still developing during these years. With this in mind, it’s completely reckless to subject a minor to an empirically inconclusive therapy. The lack of evidence and validity of conversion therapy alone should warrant a ban on the use of it on
minors.
Additionally, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors is because it has the potential to do a lot of harm to the patients undergoing it. Behavioral methods, biological interventions, and religion-based methods are the three major methods used in conversion therapy and include but aren’t limited to the specific tactics as follows: masturbatory reconditioning, aversion therapy, abstinence training, hormone therapy, use of prayer, and exorcism (Cramer et al 95). These methods cause extreme adverse side effect and as a result harm to the individual experiencing them. Common side effects include impotence, post-traumatic stress disorder, elevated depression and anxiety, self-hatred, internalized homophobia, and increased frequency of suicide ideation and attempts (Cramer et al. 101-102; Hein and Matthews 32). According to Hein and Matthews, who both have a Ph.D. and studied psychology, LGBT individuals are generally subjected to more emotional, physical, and sexual abuse than those who are heterosexual (30). Consequently, the LGBT community is a commonly targeted minority group who already has a higher risk for abuse. To add to the already existing risk any one of these potential side effects would be extremely dangerous to the health and wellbeing of the individual. Equally worrisome, minors are often forced into conversion therapy when their parents reject their sexual orientation. LGBT minors who experience rejection from their parents and don’t have an advocate are at an even higher risk for physical abuse and health issues (Moss 318-319). Internalized homophobia also becomes an issue since those who are subjected to conversion therapy are there under the impression that LGBT sexual orientation is an illness and therefore self-stigmatize. The dangerous side effects individuals are exposed to makes the continuation of conversion therapy being legal a danger to the lives and health of many LGBT minors.
Conversely, those who support conversion therapy cling to the three major arguments that there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, parents do have the right to govern their children, and religious rights would be infringed on if there was a ban. Firstly, many supporters of conversion therapy argue that since there is no concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be possible to change an individual’s sexuality to that of a heterosexual. It’s true that researchers have yet to identify a specific genome that codes for sexual orientation, but there have been studies done that point to there being a genetic component to sexuality. For example, in 2001, a study was conducted with twin and non-twin sibling pairs to analyze whether genetics or upbringing play a bigger role in sexual orientation. The study found that it’s highly likely that genetic factors play an important role in an individual’s sexuality (Kendler et al. 4). Secondly, those in favor of conversion therapy often argue that parents do have the right to make medical decisions for their children. By this logic, a ban on conversion therapy for minors would undermine the rights of the parents. Although this is usually accurate, parents don’t have the right to subject their child’s health or safety to danger (Moss 323). Lastly, supporters argue that the religious rights of the patient and the medical professional would be infringed upon if conversion therapy was banned for minors. This argument cites the idea that medical professionals should be allowed to practice in a way that lines up with their religious beliefs and patients should have the option to seek medical treatment that lines up with their religious beliefs. The issue with this line of reasoning is that a law against using conversion therapy on minors is religiously objective (Moss 323). That is to say, the law itself has no specific religious basis in that it wouldn’t be banned because of specific religious reasons and is, therefore, lacking prejudicial intentions.
Lastly, conversion therapy should be banned countrywide for minors because it’s extremely unethical for medical professions to practice. The majority of accredited medical associations oppose conversion therapy and warn professions against trying to change an individual’s sexuality. The American Psychological Association released a statement about sexuality and attempts to change it. They confirmed that same-sex attraction is a normal type of sexuality and that efforts to change sexuality should be refrained from (American Psychological Association). The American Psychiatric Association also stated that there is not enough evidence for sexuality conversion attempts to be tried (Moss 318). These aren’t the only two associations that have publicly opposed conversion therapy almost every officially recognized medical organization has warned against the use of conversion therapy. The use of conversion therapy also directly goes against the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines in three distinct areas: unfair discrimination, avoiding harm, and avoidance of false or deceptive statements (Cramer et al. 103-105). First, conversion therapy unfairly discriminates against LGBT individuals by treating their sexuality as a pathology that they need to be cured of. Second, the methods used to attempt to change the patient’s sexuality psychologically harm the patient. Third and finally, the therapy is deceptive in that a parent may be misled to believe that there is evidence it works when in reality there is an extreme lack of empirical data to support this claim. All together, any medical professional who practices conversion therapy is going against the ethical guidelines they agreed to when they received their license to practice.
Ultimately, conversion therapy needs to be banned in every state across America. Conversion therapy is medically unnecessary since it’s based on false assumptions and there isn’t any evidence it’s effective or safe. Also, there are dangerous side effects that are highly likely to cause harm to the patient undergoing the therapy. Furthermore, conversion therapy has been discredited by the major medical associations and is extremely unethical. The remaining forty-four states who don’t currently have any laws against subjecting minors to conversion therapy need to model a law after the six states that do ban it.