On March 31, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down their decision on the Chiles v. Salazar, et al case concerning the State of Colorado鈥檚 law banning 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� with minors. The court ruled that this statute may violate mental health professionals鈥� constitutional free speech rights. The ruling leaves many unanswered questions, but there is serious cause for alarm about this decision and its negative implications for the practice of psychology, and most of all for the well-being of clients. As APA President Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, stated, 鈥淲e are disappointed that the Court has left a core legal question of the case unresolved: whether states can regulate what licensed mental health professionals say to their patients in a clinical session. The answer will determine not only the fate of 鈥榗onversion therapy鈥� bans, but the broader authority of state licensing boards to enforce best practices – often enacted for the safety and protection of consumers – in any profession that uses speech to deliver therapeutic interventions.鈥�
In 2007, APA commissioned a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. In 2009, after a thorough and systematic analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE,) the Task Force stated, 鈥溾�fforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.鈥� Similarly, APA filed an Amicus Brief related to the current case, which asserted that the scientific evidence demonstrates that, 鈥渟exual orientation and gender identity change efforts are ineffective and associated with long-lasting psychological damages;鈥� and further argues that so-called 鈥渃onversion therapy is unethical and ineffective, and therefore not a legitimate therapeutic practice.鈥�
In point of fact, APA鈥檚 Statement against SOCE might have been even stronger. The data are alarming and unequivocal concerning this issue. The work of The Trevor Project and The Williams Institute, two non-profit organizations dedicated to suicide prevention efforts among LGBTQ youth and research focused on sexual orientation and gender identity issues, respectively, demonstrate that the risks of suicidal ideation and attempts among LGB people exposed to SOCE are more than double those who are not similarly exposed.聽
The Court鈥檚 decision constitutes a potential intrusion into the ethical and evidence-based practice of psychotherapy, apparently based upon reasons which are not related to psychological science. In the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson鈥檚 dissent, the SCOTUS decision, 鈥渞isks grave harm to American鈥檚 health and well-being.鈥� 海角乱伦 shares the serious concern about those risks. We also strongly echo the words of APA鈥檚 response to the SCOTUS Decision, 鈥淎PA is unsettled that the Court would treat restrictions against ineffective and harmful treatments as a violation of a counselor鈥檚 speech rather than regulation of professional conduct. Our ethical standards are unchanged. Psychologists should continue to provide evidence-based care and avoid practices known to cause harm.鈥�
From my perspective, those engaged in the practice and profession of Psychology are also called to a higher standard of advocacy and support for human beings at risk for marginalization and the violation of their rights and dignity, such as those in the LGBTQ community. Together, standing and speaking against the unscientific and dangerous practices protected by the SCOTUS decision is one meaningful way that we can attempt to live into that higher standard.
(References for citations available upon request.)
President Stogner