SUBJECT: REPARITIVE THERAPY
PURPOSE: This briefing note
is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to reparative therapy.
ISSUE: There is too much
restriction on reparative therapy.
Background:
Conversion therapy is a subject that has many questioning its validity. Numerous religious groups and organizations are in support of this therapy. They have had an uphill battle with the LGBTQ community when it pertains to the legalization of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is a treatment whereby a homosexual is provided intervention so that he or she may convert to heterosexual. This therapy has received a bad reputation because there are many pseudoscientific claims by organizations with vested interest, such as religious groups who were providing such therapy. Some of these interventions are quite extreme and pose a controversy when in in relation to the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution specifies that in Section 12, “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment.” It is specifically this clause that directly addresses the unconventional intervention provided by those that claim to be competent in conversion therapy. Some of these treatments are considered forms of torture for example, some treatments urge the need for corporal punishment, a punishment involving inflicting physical harm on another person. It is these types of treatments that directly undermine the Constitution. However, in Section 15, “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination …” what the current government is doing is banning all forms of conversion therapy whether it be valid or not. In recent years they have acted to place sanctions on those providing therapy which then results in a matter of where do people get treated if so they desire. It is the choice of individuals whether they want to seek treatment or not and through Section 15 of the Canadian Constitution, these people are being treated unfairly. What the government has essentially done in banning conversion therapy is that they have deprived equal benefit to those that would like to convert. These people that would like to convert are left with no resources in the community.
Considerations:
The World Health Organization recently declassified gender dysphoria from its list of mental health diagnoses. They then renamed this disorder gender incongruence. This was a big win for the LGBTQ community as the WHO affirms them. Gender dysphoria is the term for when a person’s emotional and psychological identity is different from their physical form. What the LGBTQ community is negligent in understanding is that this change in policy should have resulted in more treatments for people experiencing this issue. However, when this ruling was proclaimed, LGBTQ communities mobilized to ban conversion therapy, an action that falls in line with eugenics. And it has been effective. The LGBTQ community has evidently failed to see that their selfish desire and advocacy for their lust has directly impacted those that want to convert. Modern society is always attempting to remove the power for people to be able to make a choice. Such is also the case for the fat acceptance movement. This is a very dangerous ideology that serves to degrade the standards developed in western society. In the United States of America, it is estimated that 9 million or 3.8% identify as gay, lesbian bisexual or transgender. Further research indicated that the population consist of 1.8% bisexual, 1.7% gay or lesbian and 0.3% transgender. The stakeholders for this matter are the LGBTQ community, and the government.
Options:
Option 1: Regulation of conversion therapy.
This option is not feasible. There needs to be evidence based studies on the efficacy of conversion therapy. Many of those that claim to provide such service are not trained medical professionals. The government must sift through those that are valid and those that are not. This will take a significant amount of time to be able to accomplish. This option gives those that want to convert the equity that they too can receive treatment. Banning conversion therapy seeks to remove the equality of these people. The government needs to also establish support groups and organizations whereby men’s rights activist can have a public forum to support those that want to convert. It is likely that there would be moderate public support for such an option. Selecting this option gives those that would like to convert access to interventions and treatments.
Option 2: More research.
This is a very highly feasible option as governments need to conduct more research on the matter before regulating and permitting conversion therapy. Since there is a lot of pseudoscience governments can seek to make sense of the data. In this, they can delegate medical professionals to study the matter. With medical professionals backing such treatment, it bodes well for the equality of those that would like to convert. Furthermore, men’s rights activist could be educated and sent to the community to teach about sexuality. This will result in a more informed public. It is likely that there would be high public support for such option.
Option 3: Status quo.
This option is the most feasible. However, doing nothing and increasing regulations on conversion therapy will only result in a lack of equity. Currently the government is taking away equity by putting a ban on conversion therapy which then results in the inability to seek treatment for those that want to convert. This is not fair and it is a violation of the Canadian Constitution. This option removes access to health services. There is also likely to be moderate public support for this option as the indication is the extent that the government has already acted on this matter. There doesn’t seem to be any protest against their decision to ban such treatment.
Recommendation:
Option two is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment