Church opposes ban of conversion therapy

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'll pass your links along to my neighbor who's gay son killed himself after being outed.  Hopefully it'll provide him some comfort. 

Phaedrus 

That is a tragedy and far too common. But it is not a fair response.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was talking about the wording of a previous bill from early this year, not the current one.

So was I. That bill did include exceptions for religious leaders, but not for licensed mental health professionals.  I'm surprised that people here seem to prefer that a youth only get help from his/her bishop rather than being able to speak with a trained and licensed mental health professional. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'll pass your links along to my neighbor who's gay son killed himself after being outed.  Hopefully it'll provide him some comfort. 

Phaedrus 

Ignoring what research says will prevent us from finding therapies and other things that actually help. 

And I include what research says about conversion therapies in that. 

In a conversation with someone grieving, I would never point to research.  This is not a conversation for that purpose though. 

It is about making laws to prevent harmful therapies and therefore pointing out research on causes when inaccurate statements are made is appropriate, imo. 

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Just quoting the article.

I get that.  The fact is that those studies do not differentiate between coercive, fundamentalist, and even violent approaches and speaking with a trained and licensed mental health professional. I completely oppose attempting to "cure" any form of sexuality or gender identity. I don't believe such a cure should be promised or even encouraged.  However, I believe an individual should be free to work to change behaviors that are incompatible with their values. I believe that they should be free to explore the intersection of their values and their sexuality and gender identity without a therapist having a preconceived goal of how that tension (if any) needs to be resolved.  As long as that freedom is threatened, I cannot support such governmental overreach. 

[kllindley]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't help but wonder if the overbreadth of the proposed rule was intended as a feature, not a bug.  By larding up the proposal with obviously problematic elements (such as the risk you note above), its proponents know it will provoke a response from the Church.  They can then turn to reliably pliant media outlets to make sensationalized (and fairly misleading) claims about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "opposes" a ban on "conversion therapy."

Absolutely I believe that is part of the plan. Either way religious people are in an untenable position. If it passes unchallenged, we become complicit in the removal of our religious liberties. If we challenge it in any way, no matter how nuanced, we can be made out to he intolerant bigots. Plus we just might lose those religious liberties anyway. 

 

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By way of illustration, let's take a look at the headlines:

• Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’
• MySanAntonio.com: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban
• Oil City News: LDS CHURCH AGAINST PROPOSED UTAH BAN ON ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’
• CBS News: Mormon Church urges Utah not to bar "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors
• ABC4 News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes rule that would ban conversion therapy
• KJZZ: LDS Church releases statement opposing proposed conversion therapy ban
• Fox13 News: LDS Church raises objections to proposed rule banning conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah
• {EDIT TO ADD} The Guardian: Mormon church strikes blow against Utah ban on conversion therapy

Meanwhile, here's the coverage from The Deseret News:

Let's review that last bit again: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'"

Will a casual reader of any of the above-bulleted news items glean this point from the headlines?  Or even from the articles themselves?  Probably not, since the article from The Deseret News is the only one that bothers to quote this portion of the Church's letter.

Reason 5,613 to take a very cautious approach news coverage these days pertaining to conservative religious groups.  

Thanks,

-Smac

As you pointed out, the letter demonstrates much more nuance and room for agreement than is portrayed in the vast majority of the media reports. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Absolutely I believe that is part of the plan. Either way religious people are in an untenable position. If it passes unchallenged, we become complicit in the removal of our religious liberties. If we challenge it in any way, no matter how nuanced, we can be made out to he intolerant bigots. Plus we just might lose those religious liberties anyway. 

 

As you pointed out, the letter demonstrates much more nuance and room for agreement than is portrayed in the vast majority of the media reports. 

Again, from the Church's letter: "'"Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'"

California Boy (in this very thread): "So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause."

If California Boy (!) is under the false impression that the Church is interested in defending "reparative therapy," imagine what many even less informed folks are likely to be thinking.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

The Reconciliation and Growth Project is a group of religious and LGBT mental health professionals who United to address this very issue.  They developed a guide for Mental Health Professionals and policy makers that, sadly, seems to have gone unheeded by the latter.  The whole guide can be found here. 

Below is a 1 page summary they also released. 

Mental health providers, communities, policy makers, churches, and families can provide better support and avoid harm by following these key ethical principles. We advocate moving beyond terminology such as “reparative,” “conversion,” “sexual 
orientation change efforts,” and “affirmative” therapies because they fuel adversarial tensions and foster misunderstanding. Instead, we favor language that focuses on reducing the distress associated with same-sex attractions and non-traditional 
gender.

1. Assessment and interventions should adhere to the two core principles of “do no harm” and “facilitate self-determination.”

2. It is important that we have an appreciation for and understanding of individuals who experience non-traditional gender, attractions 
to the same sex, or both.

3. It is equally important that we exercise respect for and understanding of the religious, spiritual, cultural, and other ideological values of individuals and communities.

4. It is important that we have an appreciation For and understanding of sexuality, gender, and ideological values as a spectrum of diverse identities.

5. It is important that we utilize approaches that are respectful and compassionate to all the lived realities on all points of the spectrum, without dismissing any.

6. Individuals may experience distress related to same-sex attractions and/or gender identity. However, a person is not mentally ill, developmentally delayed, or addicted simply because they experience same-sex attractions or non-traditional gender.

7. All sexual orientations, gender identities, and religious/spiritual and other ideological values have the potential to be lived in healthy and unhealthy ways. The focus should be on improving functioning and changing unhealthy expressions. 

8. Approaches are inherently harmful if they:
• foster expectations of a specific sexual orientation or gender identity outcome;
• use direct or indirect coercion;
• base interventions on bias, unfounded 
theories, or prejudice; or
• limit the exploration of sexual orientation, gender, faith, and cultural identity and expression possibilities.

9. It is essential to provide a safe environment for individuals to explore, define, and articulate their own identity in order for each to discover their authentic self.

10. Individuals and institutions that have social privilege and power have a responsibility to avoid demanding specific types or outcomes of identity change and instead encourage mental and physical health.

I am curious if any if the people critical of the Church's concerns have problems with any of the principles here. 

[kllindley]

Further: https://reconciliationandgrowth.org/declaration-avoiding-harm/

Banning specific therapies does not stop abuse in therapy.  Detailing specific harmful practices can.  

Over the past several years in an attempt to prevent therapeutic harm, some U.S. jurisdictions have banned sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts, sometimes labeled as “conversion therapy,” for minors. Lawmakers in other states have initiated similar efforts for both minors and adults. However, the concept of conversion therapy, as well as similar terms, has not been clearly defined. Without a precise understanding of what these laws are attempting to ban, endeavors to enforce such laws may be applied inconsistently and in a manner that may not be in clients’ best interests.

As a group of mental health professionals and academics across the sociopolitical spectrum, we believe that a shared understanding of specific, potentially harmful therapeutic practices is crucial. Efforts to avoid these specific practices, we believe, will more effectively honor clients’ right to self-determination and promote their well-being than bans on loosely defined therapies.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause.

And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth?

 

 

This is a false dichotomy that presumes policy makers can’t find a way to protect people from harmful treatment without abridging the free exercise of religion. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

So was I. That bill did include exceptions for religious leaders, but not for licensed mental health professionals.  I'm surprised that people here seem to prefer that a youth only get help from his/her bishop rather than being able to speak with a trained and licensed mental health professional. 

I would guess I have more often advised the bishop to recommend and (often) pay for therapy out of fast offerings for troubled youth and adults than anyone else in the ward. The previous bill did not prohibit that. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest. That members are opposed to mental health care? Don’t we get lambasted all the time for all the antidepressants we take?

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a false dichotomy that presumes policy makers can’t find a way to protect people from harmful treatment without abridging the free exercise of religion. 

I agree. We had a bill everyone agreed on that prohibited conversion therapy. Then some idiot ruined it. Then a new bill came out that could step on religious toes. Why not smack upside the head the idiot who ruined it six months ago, get it to a vote, and just solve this thing? People in Utah should be annoying your reps with emails and letters and whatever.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I would guess I have more often advised the bishop to recommend and (often) pay for therapy out of fast offerings for troubled youth and adults than anyone else in the ward. The previous bill did not prohibit that. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest. That members are opposed to mental health care? Don’t we get lambasted all the time for all the antidepressants we take?

The previous bill did prevent licensed mental health professionals from working with youth to change any behaviors related to sexual orientation. I am suggesting that if these rules/bills go into effect, the only option for any religious youth wanting to change behaviors related to sexual orientation would be religious leaders.  I love our Bishops collectively, but I don't trust them individually to do less harm than a licensed mental health professional. 

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I agree. We had a bill everyone agreed on that prohibited conversion therapy. Then some idiot ruined it. Then a new bill came out that could step on religious toes. Why not smack upside the head the idiot who ruined it six months ago, get it to a vote, and just solve this thing? People in Utah should be annoying your reps with emails and letters and whatever.

I know many LDS LGBT individuals (myself included) who did not support the bill six months ago.  It was still too broad. 

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

If parents and youth are in agreement to do it, then I don't think the state has a compelling interest to forbid it.

Since when should agreement between two parties make something legal?

[toon]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think the government should not interfere in the choices that we make as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of another.  Inaccurate claims should not be banned.  They can be flagged as inaccurate.  Its the responsibility of citizens to educate themselves. Not have government come in and made decisions for them. People should be allowed to take whatever pills they want.  However a bank should not use your money in ways without your permission or knowledge of.  At least you should be insured against any misuse of it. 

But isn't this more a matter of what licensed therapists are allowed to do under the auspices of their license?

How is such a prohibition here different than prohibiting a psychiatrist from administering psicolocybin or MDMA therapy for someone suffering from depression or PTSD? While there may be some extremely positive research and developments behind the therapies, .they're still prohibited outside of an approved clinical trial.  if you're not part of such an approved trial program, a psychiatrist risks his or her license by moving forward with such treatment.

Move back the clock ten years, and it's the same with doctor's writing writing prescriptions (aka recommendations) for medicinal marijuana. The number of doctors willing to write such recommendations was severely limited by the threat to their licenses. In fact, the only doctors willing to do so during this time were those who had effectively given up their medical practices in favor of writing marijuana prescriptions.

The point being that having a license means that you're somewhat restricted in what you can do with that license, and to a large extent, what is and isn't allowed with be dependent on the scientific consensus. 

How is a therapist engaging in conversion therapy a religious issue, when administering magic mushrooms isn't?

[toon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Church's letter: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'"

What part of this statement, if any, do you find problematic?

Thanks,

-Smac

What's their definition of "longstanding?"

How long has it been since the Church recommended , or in some cases required, such practices?

If this is purely an academic response to concerns about religious freedoms, why can't the church state, along with its opposition to the current language, that a member who administers such therapies cannot be in good standing? Something along the lines of, "We oppose these practices and therapies, but we cannot support a legislative ban for the following reasons ________________________. Nevertheless, any member who recommends or engages in such therapies is acting in opposition to Church counsel." 

[california boy]

I think it is time we actually look at the bill and see if we can figure out the issues.  This is how the bill defines conversion therapy.

Quote

Prohibition on providing conversion therapy to a minor.
47          (1) As used in this section:
48          (a) "Conversion therapy" means a practice or treatment that:
49          (i) claims that therapy will result in a complete and permanent reversal in the patient or
50     client's sexual orientation;
51          (ii) asserts that a complete and permanent change in the patient or client's sexual
52     orientation is necessary;
 

All of the professional medical organizations that have come out against conversion therapy have stated that there is no evidence that you can complete a permanent reversal of a persons sexual orientation.  This bill would prohibit making such a promise by licensed therapists.  How is this a problem when there has been no evidence that a permanent reversal of sexual orientation can happen.

Oh yeah, and you can't make the patient nausea, vomit or shock the living daylights out of them.

Quote

  (iii) subjects a patient or client to physical discomfort through aversive treatment that
54     causes nausea, vomiting, or other unpleasant physical sensations; or
55          (iv) provides electric shock or other electrical therapy, including electroconvulsive

Is this a problem for anyone?

The bill goes on to explain what conversion therapy is not.  By that it specifically is saying what the bill does not include.

SO, what is the big objection?  What wording in this bill is offensive or vague?  Because it sounds like the Church is making up excuses for not supporting this bill.  The Church never really states what part of the bill they feel is vague do they?  Maybe those that object to this bill can be specific on what it is in the bill that they find objectional or vague.  It looks pretty straight forward to me.  Don't make fraudulent claims that someone can change their sexual orientation.  Period.

Edited October 16, 2019 by california boy

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it is time we actually look at the bill and see if we can figure out the issues.  This is how the bill defines conversion therapy.

All of the professional medical organizations that have come out against conversion therapy have stated that there is no evidence that you can complete a permanent reversal of a persons sexual orientation.  This bill would prohibit making such a promise by licensed therapists.  How is this a problem when there has been no evidence that a permanent reversal of sexual orientation can happen.

Oh yeah, and you can't make the patient nausea, vomit or shock the living daylights out of them.

Is this a problem for anyone?

The bill goes on to explain what conversion therapy is not.  By that it specifically is saying what the bill does not include.

SO, what is the big objection?  What wording in this bill is offensive or vague?  Because it sounds like the Church is making up excuses for not supporting this bill.  The Church never really states what part of the bill they feel is vague do they?  Maybe those that object to this bill can be specific on what it is in the bill that they find objectional or vague.  It looks pretty straight forward to me.  Don't make fraudulent claims that someone can change their sexual orientation.  Period.

This is the amended bill that was nerfed by Equality Utah and the sponsoring legislator. I could have fully supported this one. 

Maybe you could explain why this amended bill was so terrible that the LGBT lobby preferred not to even vote on it. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by kllindley

[Calm]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

People should be allowed to take whatever pills they want.  However a bank should not use your money in ways without your permission or knowledge of. 

But someone telling you a pill will work a certain way when it doesn’t is equivalent to a bank taking your money and using it for a different purpose, imo. The pill has a different purpose than they tell you it has, after all. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Calm

[kllindley]

The original Bill stated:

) As used in this section:
188          (a) (i) "Conversion therapy" means any practice or treatment that seeks to change the
189     sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient or client, including mental health therapy that
190     seeks to change, eliminate, or reduce behaviors, expressions, attractions, or feelings related to a
191     patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity.

[kllindley]

Current rule proposal:

"Sexual orientation change efforts" means methods, practices, procedures, or techniques with the goal of changing an individual's sexual orientation, including gendered patterns in attraction, feelings, or behavior, or identity related to these patterns.

(12)(a) Methods, practices, procedures, or techniques that are neutral with respect to the sexual orientation and gender identity of the individual do not constitute "sexual orientation change efforts" or "gender identity change efforts".

(b) Methods, practices, procedures, or techniques that are neutral with respect to the sexual orientation and gender identity of the individual include, but are not limited to, the following interventions, as long as the interventions do not have the goal of changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity:

(i) reducing an individual's internalized stigma;

(ii) providing acceptance, support, and comprehensive assessment of an individual;

(iii) facilitating an individual's active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development;

(iv) assisting an individual considering or undergoing gender transition; or

(v) preventing or addressing an individual's unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

The previous bill did prevent licensed mental health professionals from working with youth to change any behaviors related to sexual orientation. I am suggesting that if these rules/bills go into effect, the only option for any religious youth wanting to change behaviors related to sexual orientation would be religious leaders.  I love our Bishops collectively, but I don't trust them individually to do less harm than a licensed mental health professional. 

No, not if I understand it right. The previous bill was less restrictive and basically would allow a therapist to help someone who has a goal with mitigating some desires to help if I understand it correctly. The more recent one is more restrictive which is why I believe the church opposes this one and had no objection to the earlier one.

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I know many LDS LGBT individuals (myself included) who did not support the bill six months ago.  It was still too broad. 

I disagree with that assessment but it would come down to interpretation and how Utah's ethical guidelines are administrated. You may know more then me here though. I do think that conversion therapy needs to end. They are a bunch of quacks selling hope to the desperate. Then again, most treatment facilities are of dubious value. It is ridiculously easy to open one with any crackpot method of fixing something.

Mitigation or a desire to help someone not live a certain way by their own choice? Sure, that should be free.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think the government should not interfere in the choices that we make as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of another.  Inaccurate claims should not be banned.  They can be flagged as inaccurate.  Its the responsibility of citizens to educate themselves. Not have government come in and made decisions for them. People should be allowed to take whatever pills they want.  However a bank should not use your money in ways without your permission or knowledge of.  At least you should be insured against any misuse of it. 

That sounds noble but it opens the door for quacks. Obama's "drug czar" once commented that if his son was addicted to drugs and needed treatment he had no idea where to send him for help. When it comes to crisis situations or people with mental health issues there isn't always time to shop around and become informed and there is almost no source you can trust. If people want to go to a bog witch for treatment I think you should be allowed but if the bog witch is using misleading labeling to imply they are a doctor and people go to them seeking real medicine than something is wrong.

I have no desire to live in a world where I have to demand to see qualifications every time I need medical help or to see a therapist or worse, there are no qualifications and I just have to dig around and hope to find someone who knows what they are doing.

We are already expanding licensing to pseudoscientific chiropractics and with their newfound respectability work to suppress the expansion of physical therapy which is based on real science. Who knows? Maybe there will be bog witch licensing in a few years. Or phrenology is probably due to make a comeback soon too.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I have a hard time with the above scenario.  

I think the main issue is with minors.  A minor might not be okay with going to therapy.  The question is, do parents get to force unscientific, religious based therapy on their children?  It is the same question for medical treatment like blood transfusions. Does religious belief trump science and the rights of the individual.  Even if that individual is a minor?

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is to protect everyone's freedom of religious expression, which includes obtaining goods and services not everyone agrees with on religious or moral grounds, and not forcing anyone to provide or not provide them.

Even if they push those "goods and services" on their children?  Do you support JW parents refusal to authorize life saving blood transfusions to their children because it goes against their religious freedoms?

Edited October 17, 2019 by sunstoned