Should Conversion Therapy Be Outlawed?

[Noraika]

Yes for the same reason drugs that cause harm are banned. If it is not banned then they need to not only reveal that this is not supported by doctors or psychologists, that those two professions in general feel it harmful, and they need to outline the possible negative repercussions the same way current drugs need to. They cannot advertise this as a medical procedure or they are committing fraud.

Good luck getting the quack scientists who practice it to do that.

One thing I wonder is whether or not those quack scientists ever had to go through their own therapy? If not, then that could be a suitable punishment for them practicing it, although in the opposite direction, so "Straight Conversion Therapy".

[Salus Maior]

No, we should have less regulation in our lives. What happens to stupid people is on them, but of course we should be protecting the actual mentally disabled from this.

Banning conversion therapy is barely regulation. All it literally is, is banning a dangerous practice that people are deceived into doing thinking it will "help" them when it might just do them massive harm psychologically or even physically. There is literally no downside to banning it, and people are harmed by keeping it around.

[Neutraligon]

Yes for the same reason drugs that cause harm are banned. If it is not banned then they need to not only reveal that this is not supported by doctors or psychologists, that those two professions in general feel it harmful, and they need to outline the possible negative repercussions the same way current drugs need to. They cannot advertise this as a medical procedure or they are committing fraud.

Good luck getting the quack scientists who practice it to do that.

Make it a regulation controlled by the FDA (I feel that faith healing should also be similarly controlled); they are after all making medical claims. If they disobey they are then breaking the law.

[Kraylandia]

Good luck getting the quack scientists who practice it to do that.

One thing I wonder is whether or not those quack scientists ever had to go through their own therapy? If not, then that could be a suitable punishment for them practicing it, although in the opposite direction, so "Straight Conversion Therapy".

It's still some form of regulation. As I have stated numerous bloody times, if they are of sound mind and are an adult, then let them have straight or gay conversion therapy or whatever they want.

[Noraika]

One thing I wonder is whether or not those quack scientists ever had to go through their own therapy? If not, then that could be a suitable punishment for them practicing it, although in the opposite direction, so "Straight Conversion Therapy".

It's still some form of regulation. As I have stated numerous bloody times, if they are of sound mind and are an adult, then let them have straight or gay conversion therapy or whatever they want.

Nope. It should be illegal in all cases unless used as punishment on those found to be practicing it, regardless of age or mental state.

[West Aurelia]

If it's forced then it should be banned. People should be able to do it voluntarily if they wish, no matter how fucking retarded or abusive the practise is.

This.

[Kraylandia]

It's still some form of regulation. As I have stated numerous bloody times, if they are of sound mind and are an adult, then let them have straight or gay conversion therapy or whatever they want.

Nope. It should be illegal in all cases unless used as punishment on those found to be practicing it, regardless of age or mental state.

No thanks, we're not all authoritarians like yourself.

[Neutraligon]

If it's forced then it should be banned. People should be able to do it voluntarily if they wish, no matter how fucking retarded or abusive the practise is.

This.

That only works if they are informed of the consequences of that choice, as well as how those who are in the medical field feel about it. My feeling is that it should only happen if there is no coercion, and if there is informed consent. As minors cannot give that consent they should not be able to have conversion therapy.

[Kraylandia]

This.

That only works if they are informed of the consequences of that choice, as well as how those who are in the medical field feel about it.

And they would be informed, as we have said numerous times in this thread. But obviously nobody bothers to actually read anymore. Consenting adults with full mental capacity to make that decision only.

[San Lumen]

That only works if they are informed of the consequences of that choice, as well as how those who are in the medical field feel about it.

And they would be informed, as we have said numerous times in this thread. But obviously nobody bothers to actually read anymore. Consenting adults with full mental capacity to make that decision only.

But the people who practice wouldn't admit its a fraud and harmful to the person. Hence the reason its would be banned. Its not authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Should we not have outlawed lead paint or DDT or asbestos? Was it authoritarian to ban those and others things as well?

[Occupied Deutschland]

This.

That only works if they are informed of the consequences of that choice, as well as how those who are in the medical field feel about it.

There is easily available information about the effectiveness and suitability of conversion therapy as discussed by people in the medical field.

Some, as is their right, will not seek such information out, of course. Such is the consequence of letting people make decisions. Sometimes they'll make the 'wrong' ones for their health. Hence homeopathy, smoking, drinking, and any other number of things.

[Kraylandia]

And they would be informed, as we have said numerous times in this thread. But obviously nobody bothers to actually read anymore. Consenting adults with full mental capacity to make that decision only.

But the people who practice wouldn't admit its a fraud and harmful to the person. Hence the reason its would be banned. Its not authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Should we not have outlawed lead paint or DDT or asbestos? Was it authoritarian to ban those and others things as well?

That's why it's up to the adult to look into it first. And yes, it is authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Not sure how something being harmful makes it an exception.

[Jorliefstreiken]

But the people who practice wouldn't admit its a fraud and harmful to the person. Hence the reason its would be banned. Its not authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Should we not have outlawed lead paint or DDT or asbestos? Was it authoritarian to ban those and others things as well?

That's why it's up to the adult to look into it first. And yes, it is authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Not sure how something being harmful makes it an exception.

agreed. nothing forced should be allowed, but if your making the choice of your own will, and they give you a decent warning, then no reason to ban it, despiet how messed up it is. there have been cases like this before, such as certain Scientology practices, and if the adult has agreed to what they are doing, then it is legal.

[Neutraligon]

That only works if they are informed of the consequences of that choice, as well as how those who are in the medical field feel about it.

There is easily available information about the effectiveness and suitability of conversion therapy as discussed by people in the medical field.

Some, as is their right, will not seek such information out, of course. Such is the consequence of letting people make decisions. Sometimes they'll make the 'wrong' ones for their health. Hence homeopathy, smoking, drinking, and any other number of things.

We do not let drug companies get away with that excuse, and we should not assume everyone can or has access to that information. We do not let doctors get away without telling the possible consequences of surgery. We should not let these people get away without clearly informing the participants of the consequences.

[San Lumen]

That's why it's up to the adult to look into it first. And yes, it is authoritarian to ban something that is harmful. Not sure how something being harmful makes it an exception.

agreed. nothing forced should be allowed, but if your making the choice of your own will, and they give you a decent warning, then no reason to ban it, despiet how messed up it is. there have been cases like this before, such as certain Scientology practices, and if the adult has agreed to what they are doing, then it is legal.

but conversion therapy never gets a warning attached. Its been disproven as a fraud. Parents send their kids to it and adults are made to think it will work. It doesn't. What is wrong with banning it?

[Kraylandia]

agreed. nothing forced should be allowed, but if your making the choice of your own will, and they give you a decent warning, then no reason to ban it, despiet how messed up it is. there have been cases like this before, such as certain Scientology practices, and if the adult has agreed to what they are doing, then it is legal.

but conversion therapy never gets a warning attached. Its been disproven as a fraud. Parents send their kids to it and adults are made to think it will work. It doesn't. What is wrong with banning it?

Oh my fucking god. That's why it's up to the fucking adult with full mental capacity to look into it first. We're talking about voluntary "therapy" here not the forced crap. So stop comparing it.

[Jorliefstreiken]

agreed. nothing forced should be allowed, but if your making the choice of your own will, and they give you a decent warning, then no reason to ban it, despiet how messed up it is. there have been cases like this before, such as certain Scientology practices, and if the adult has agreed to what they are doing, then it is legal.

but conversion therapy never gets a warning attached. Its been disproven as a fraud. Parents send their kids to it and adults are made to think it will work. It doesn't. What is wrong with banning it?

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

[Occupied Deutschland]

There is easily available information about the effectiveness and suitability of conversion therapy as discussed by people in the medical field.

Some, as is their right, will not seek such information out, of course. Such is the consequence of letting people make decisions. Sometimes they'll make the 'wrong' ones for their health. Hence homeopathy, smoking, drinking, and any other number of things.

We do not let drug companies get away with that excuse, and we should not assume everyone can or has access to that information. We do not let doctors get away without telling the possible consequences of surgery. We should not let these people get away without clearly informing the participants of the consequences.

Gay conversion therapy is not a drug, nor is it a surgery, though. Hence why the comparison doesn't work.

The comparison is, rather obviously, those pushing 'homeopathic' cures and other snake-oil salesman (whose suitability as discussed by actual medical proffessionals is also available should one seek it out). Snake-oil salesman, despite their contemptability, do not operate under the same responsibilities or threats as actual surgeons or drug companies. Because 'behavior' is not 'biology' and, to my knowledge, 'gay conversion' involves behavior modification rather than biological.

Behavior, and any therapies designed to change it, is something traditionally and properly left in the hands of the individual who decides their own behavior as they see fit. This is commonly opposed to the reaon drug laws and medical licensing of various types developed, which traditionally had to do with protecting an uninformed populace from dangers they were incapable of knowing without extensive research. Behavior is something each person has an ingrained knowledge of relating to themselves, and that each person is free to attempt and change in any way they see fit.

This will, of course, have negative consequences as people inevitably make poor choice regarding their behavior and how they seek to change it. This has been going on for millenia.

[Salus Maior]

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

Considering that no one in their right mind would do the therapy in the full knowledge that it is fraud and dangerous what's the difference between that and just banning it?

[Neutraligon]

but conversion therapy never gets a warning attached. Its been disproven as a fraud. Parents send their kids to it and adults are made to think it will work. It doesn't. What is wrong with banning it?

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

No you do not. For instance you do not get to sell "medicine" as medicine unless allowed by the FDA even if you announce it does not work on the bottle.

[Neutraligon]

We do not let drug companies get away with that excuse, and we should not assume everyone can or has access to that information. We do not let doctors get away without telling the possible consequences of surgery. We should not let these people get away without clearly informing the participants of the consequences.

Gay conversion therapy is not a drug, nor is it a surgery, though. Hence why the comparison doesn't work.

The comparison is, rather obviously, those pushing 'homeopathic' cures and other snake-oil salesman (whose suitability as discussed by actual medical proffessionals is also available should one seek it out). Snake-oil salesman, despite their contemptability, do not operate under the same responsibilities or threats as actual surgeons or drug companies. Because 'behavior' is not 'biology' and, to my knowledge, 'gay conversion' involves behavior modification rather than biological.

Behavior, and any therapies designed to change it, is something traditionally and properly left in the hands of the individual who decides their own behavior as they see fit. This is commonly opposed to the reaon drug laws and medical licensing of various types developed, which traditionally had to do with protecting an uninformed populace from dangers they were incapable of knowing without extensive research. Behavior is something each person has an ingrained knowledge of relating to themselves, and that each person is free to attempt and change in any way they see fit.

This will, of course, have negative consequences as people inevitably make poor choice regarding their behavior and how they seek to change it. This has been going on for millenia.

Again that is not true. Therapy is in the end a medical science and is biology, thus therapies should be regulated under similar rules to other medical fields. After all therapy is supposed to deal with things like psychology, which is still highly regulated.

[Jorliefstreiken]

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

No you do not. For instance you do not get to sell "medicine" as medicine unless allowed by the FDA even if you announce it does not work on the bottle.

Buisness, not realease a medicine. which is not what conversion therapy is. As long as you pay buisness tax, give a warning and have the person sign a waiver, they should be allowed.

[Kraylandia]

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

Considering that no one in their right mind would do the therapy in the full knowledge that it is fraud and dangerous what's the difference between that and just banning it?

Got a source or something to back that up? There's plenty of adults out there that are just foolish. They'll do, so just let them.

[Tutukerala]

Let people do whatever the Hell they want, just don't bother me.

[Salus Maior]

Considering that no one in their right mind would do the therapy in the full knowledge that it is fraud and dangerous what's the difference between that and just banning it?

Got a source or something to back that up? There's plenty of adults out there that are just foolish. They'll do, so just let them.

You need a source to deduce that rational human beings wouldn't avoid mental/physical damage for no reward?