The Effectiveness And Ethicality Of Conversion-Rep

4638 Words19 Pages
The Effectiveness and Ethicality of Conversion-Reparative Therapy: Abstract Conversion-Reparative Therapy is a topic that has caused much controversy over the last fifty years. More so after the American Psychological Association’s decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There does, however, still exist many professionals and organizations that continue to practice these forms of therapy. In this paper I examine the reports of several different organizations and show data that culminates in supporting the view that CRT is for the most part minimally effective and may socio-psychological harm more often than it does help a person transition from homosexual to functioning heterosexual lifestyles. Introduction Conversion-Reparative Therapy, hereafter referred to as CRT, is a widely debated topic in both psychological and religious literature. CRT is generally recognized as any one, or combination of, different approaches aimed at moving an individual from a state of primarily homosexual orientation to a state of primarily heterosexual orientation ( Haldeman, 1994; Throckmorton, 1998). First documented as a treatment approach to homosexuality in the early 1960’s (Throckmorton, 1998), CRT continues to be used by a wide variety of professionals and paraprofessionals including psychoanalysts, clergy, religious counselors, and therapists (Haldeman, 1994). Presently, CRT is most commonly found in the fields of psychoanalysis and/or religion-based counseling, but during the past fifty years is has been employed across a wide range of disciplines including behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and group therapy (Haldeman, 1994; Throckmortaon, 1998). In this study I explore two reoccurring issues found in CRT research, specifically, the effectiveness of CRT

More about The Effectiveness And Ethicality Of Conversion-Rep

Open Document