• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

California law bans gay teen 'conversion' therapy

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
http://news.yahoo.com/california-law-bans-gay-teen-conversion-therapy-053700163.html

I wonder how they plan on enforcing this considering doctor/patient privilege. Seems like something that would be easy to circumvent.


Not sure how I feel about this yet.. I have 2 gay friends that went through this "therapy" growing up at the behest of their parents. In both cases, it was one of those extreme "pray the gay away" type camps run by religious leaders (not doctors). In both cases, they feel it set them back (in life) quite a bit, and made things much worse in an already difficult time.

On the other hand, I worry about the bill encroaching into medical therapy practice creating a situation where even approaching the subject of sexuality is avoided due to fear of repercussions. That being said, the major behavioral science associations in the state seem to support it, so I guess they would know better than I would.
 
Last edited:

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,894
0
0
Confidentiality is preserved on the doctor's side, not the patient's. The patient is free to report any discussion they had with their doctor/therapist.

While many patients would not report it, any therapist doing this for multiple clients will ultimately get reported.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Meh, California. Who said the laws have to make sense or at very least can be enforced.

Along the same lines as New York and their sugary drink ban.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Confidentiality is preserved on the doctor's side, not the patient's. The patient is free to report any discussion they had with their doctor/therapist.

While many patients would not report it, any therapist doing this for multiple clients will ultimately get reported.
Good point..
 
Last edited:

boochi

Senior member
May 21, 2011
984
0
0
Why is California telling doctors that they can't treat a mental illness?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
57
91
If people want treatment then let them get it, why are you against this?
I'm not against it. If people choose of their own free will that type of therapy they can find it.
I am against parents forcing their children into it because they fear their child is gay, or some other bullshit religious reason.
It doesn't make you or boochi less trolls though.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I'm not against it. If people choose of their own free will that type of therapy they can find it.
I am against parents forcing their children into it because they fear their child is gay, or some other bullshit religious reason.
It doesn't make you or boochi less trolls though.
Telling parents what they should or shouldn't do with their children really backs up your ideology on free will and their freedom to choose.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Why is California telling doctors that they can't treat a mental illness?
Being "gay" has not been classified as a mental illness since the 70's. It's now recognized as a normal variation of sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I read the law, and I don't know how effective of a "ban" this will be. It defines conversion therapy as "unethical," meaning that the practitioner's professional association can discipline the practitioner for engaging in it. The problem is that "therapy" of various kinds is often performed by unlicensed people. Take "life counseling" and other such self-help types, for example. This law will do nothing if someone without a license engages in the practice. I'd have to look into more closely, but I'm fairly certain that many of the people who practice this "conversion therapy" are not licensed.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Telling parents what they should or shouldn't do with their children really backs up your ideology on free will and their freedom to choose.
Parents telling their gay teens that they're "sick" and need to be "cured" goes against free will and the teens freedom to choose as well.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Parents telling their gay teens that they're "sick" and need to be "cured" goes against free will and the teens freedom to choose as well.
How? That has nothing to do with free will. Also, teens aren't afforded any of these "freedoms" under our current laws. Until they are emancipated or 18, they are nothing more than an extension of the parent. The parent retains the freedom and right to choose. Keep preaching, however.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
How? That has nothing to do with free will. Also, teens aren't afforded any of these "freedoms" under our current laws. Until they are emancipated or 18, they are nothing more than an extension of the parent. The parent retains the freedom and right to choose. Keep preaching, however.
Agreed. The parents have the right to say what they want, Government has no place here
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
How? That has nothing to do with free will. Also, teens aren't afforded any of these "freedoms" under our current laws. Until they are emancipated or 18, they are nothing more than an extension of the parent. The parent retains the freedom and right to choose. Keep preaching, however.
That's not entirely true. Just because a minor doesn't have certain legal rights (ie, the right to consent or sign contracts), it doesn't mean that they waive all rights until the age of majority. If that were the case, child abuse wouldn't be a crime. If the state declares that a certain treatment constitutes abuse, the parents wouldn't be legally allowed to use it as a method of raising their child any more than they are allowed to beat their children now.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
xBiffx doesn't think teens have civil rights (specifically rights against child abuse) until they are 18. Look at that.

If someone wants to go into anti-gay therapy of their own cognizance, let them. However, a parent forcing a child into this type of therapy is absurd.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
xBiffx doesn't think teens have civil rights (specifically rights against child abuse) until they are 18. Look at that.

If someone wants to go into anti-gay therapy of their own cognizance, let them. However, a parent forcing a child into this type of therapy is absurd.
Why? Parents force there kids into sports and other things, And what about religion, what if the religion is against gays?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
57
91
How? That has nothing to do with free will. Also, teens aren't afforded any of these "freedoms" under our current laws. Until they are emancipated or 18, they are nothing more than an extension of the parent. The parent retains the freedom and right to choose. Keep preaching, however.
OK then, Moonbeam and I are going to start a conservative conversion and prevention clinic.
Parents can bring their children that are showing the telltale signs of being a conservative and get them the mental help they really need.



Sounds absurd doesn't it, that's because it is.
Replace the word conservative with gay and you have what is going on with the bunch of (mostly) quacks that are doing the same thing with gay kids.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
ust because a minor doesn't have certain legal rights (ie, the right to consent or sign contracts), it doesn't mean that they waive all rights until the age of majority.
That's exactly what it means. Aside from a few cherry picked ones, i.e. not requiring notification of parents for things like abortion. But those laws are very narrow in field and specific to the treatment.

If that were the case, child abuse wouldn't be a crime.
Not all crimes are such just because they deprive someone else of their rights. The illegality of child abuse isn't founded in rights.

Interesting that you would bring up child abuse. Probably because if its ambiguous nature. What one family could classify as abuse another classifies as discipline or a stern upbringing. Just because you call it child abuse, doesn't make it always the case under the law.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
OK then, Moonbeam and I are going to start a conservative conversion and prevention clinic.
Parents can bring their children that are showing the telltale signs of being a conservative and get them the mental help they really need.



Sounds absurd doesn't it, that's because it is.
Replace the word conservative with gay and you have what is going on with the bunch of (mostly) quacks that are doing the same thing with gay kids.
Those are two totally different things, Conservatives stand for Freedom while the other wants special protection
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY