NARTH's Response To:

The American Psychological Association's
"Resolution On Appropriate Therapeutic Responses To Sexual Orientation" (August 14, 1997)
and
APA Public Affairs Office:
"Resolution: Questions And Answers" (August 14, 1997)

NARTH strongly protests this resolution on sexual-reorientation therapy. First, it was passed without due process--without notification to interested organizations, such as NARTH--who should have been invited to present opposing facts at an open hearing. Second, the resolution constitutes a distortion of the scientific literature. Third, it threatens the right of dissatisfied homosexuals to choose their own direction of treatment. Fourth, it is an infringement on the right of a psychologist to express certain of his scientifically informed opinions.

NARTH maintains that it is ethically acceptable for a psychologist to--

• hold the scientifically informed, professional opinion that homosexuality is:
• a developmental disorder
• a treatable condition
• associated with a higher-than-average level of both medical risks and psychopathology
• reveal to the client his scientifically informed, professional opinion.
• enter a client-therapist relationship focused on the diminishing of unwanted homosexual symptoms and the enhancement of heterosexual responsiveness, when the client so chooses.

Like the APA, NARTH opposes homophobia (irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals). We, too, oppose social stigmatization and obstruction of the civil rights of homosexuals. We wish to make this point of agreement clear. However, there is yet another group whose civil rights are at stake in this issue: the many dissatisfied homosexuals whose freedom to choose the direction of their treatment is now being threatened. The A.P.A. Office of Gay and Lesbian Affairs completely ignores (and even denigrates) the beliefs and concerns of this client population.

NARTH agrees that the client should not be coerced into treatment by family, society, or religion. As therapists, we fully recognize that no therapy will be successful that relies on coercion. However, the A.P.A. must recognize that a client's values and opinions are inevitably formed through his interaction with family members, rabbi or pastor, teachers, and other community members; and the influence of respected individuals in the client's life must not be seen as "coercion" simply because A.P.A. does not like those values.

NARTH has seen that the main reason clients seek change from homosexuality is not, as the A.P.A. states, anti-gay social pressure--but dissatisfaction with a gay lifestyle. Such a lifestyle includes, among gay men:

• a resurgence of the AIDS epidemic, despite warnings about safe sex;
• vastly higher incidences of all forms of venereal diseases and hepatitis;
• vastly higher rates of promiscuity, sex with strangers, and S & M practices;
• the lack of a stable family structure;
• various psychological symptoms and intrapsychic disturbances.

The A.P.A. insists that the therapist be "neutral." But if neutrality means that the therapist must not hold scientifically-formed opinions on a controversial issue, then he will not be able to treat any controversial problem about which he has an opinion. The gay-affirmative therapist--who tells the client that he should not want to change--is himself certainly not "neutral and unbiased" in his perspective of homosexuality.

A.P.A. has stated its concern about accuracy of scientific information. Yet most gay-affirmative therapists convey the scientifically indefensible message that homosexuality is "inborn" in spite of the general concensus in the serious scientific community that homosexuality originates (like most psychological conditions) from a complex interaction of social, psychological and biological influences. NARTH would like to see the A.P.A.--which is rightfully concerned about scientific accuracy--take a responsible role to correct the very widely disseminated, popular misconception that homosexuality is genetic.

Another important issue should be mentioned here. What about the many sexually confused teenagers, who are typically encouraged by counselors to try out a gay lifestyle, but rarely told that--first, they may in fact NOT be homosexual; and second, that modification of their homosexuality MAY be possible? The common practice of broadly "affirming" all sexually questioning youth as "gay" is patently unethical.

Should a gay-affirmative psychologist be held legally responsible if the teen then contracts AIDS after he has been encouraged to explore a gay lifestyle--at an age when he is too young to make a decision about his sexual identity?

A.P.A. claims that therapy will exacerbate the client's poor self-esteem, shame, and guilt. NARTH's own recent survey of over 850 individuals who report change strongly suggests the opposite: we found an increase in self-understanding and self-esteem, and improved ability to relate to others. Recently Houston MacIntosh, M.D. reported a survey of 1275 patients in the prestigious Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA 1994, 42,4), which found 85% of homosexual patients experienced a significant increase in overall well-being, with 23% making the transition to heterosexuality. Other highly regarded, older research (such as the Bieber study and others) has similarly shown that about one-quarter to one-third of clients have changed orientation.

The resolution says that "in their work-related activities, psychologists [must] respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes and opinions that differ from their own." We agree. This is, in fact, exactly the point of the issue disputed. The A.P.A. is, in essence, telling the client, "You do not know your own mind. Your desire, your values and your choices are not really your own----WE know what you really want for yourself." This is a clear violation of the client's freedom of self-determination.

CONCLUSIONS

1. We urge the A.P.A. to investigate the cause and nature of homosexuality. Such studies should not--as is most often the case--be funded almost solely by gay backers and conducted by gay-activist researchers. More research is necessary, in an open atmosphere.

The A.P.A. Monitor's "When Research is Swept Under the Rug" (August 97) makes reference to the sort of problem NARTH encounters. We have tried announce our annual conventions in the Monitor, and to obtain A.P.A. member mailing lists to conduct our research--and we have been systematically denied the privileges that are enjoyed by gay-affirmative organizations.

We urge the APA to enter into communication with NARTH to establish a well-designed, scientific study to measure pathology associated with a gay lifestyle, and the effects of psychoanalytically informed, reparative therapy on a client's self-esteem, self-understanding, unwanted sexual behavior, and same-sex fantasy.

2. We agree with the APA on the importance of "informed consent" -- i.e., that the client be informed about treatment techniques, expected outcomes, and alternatives to the treatments; and we agree that all such statement should be "true and non-deceptive." However, if A.P.A.'s current general guidelines are insufficient to protect the client from unscrupulous practitioners, then these standards should be revised across the board--not used selectively to restrict the practices of sexual-reorientation therapists.

3. A.P.A. has stated what NARTH knows: there is no body of evidence to justify the conclusion that reparative therapy is harmful.

Therefore, rather than working against us, we call on the A.P.A. to work with NARTH -- in a mutual effort to more fully understand the homosexual condition.

Email this to a friend