Posts Tagged As: United Kingdom

Study: Therapies To Attempt Change In Sexual Orientation Still Offered In UK

Jim Burroway

March 27th, 2009

Annie Bartlett, Glenn Smith, Michael King. “The response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change or redirect same-sex sexual orientation.” BMC Psychiatry (March 26, 2009): in press. Pre-release article available here (free registration required). Assigned DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-9-11.

There have been remarkably few studies on attempts the change sexual orientation in clinical settings. There’s very little evidence that such attempts are effective, and there is some evidence that these attempts may be harmful to many clients who seek change.  A recent study from the U.K. has looked at the issue and came to some surprising results.

According to the study, only about 4% of British therapists reported that they themselves would attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation if the client asked for such therapy. But in a surprising finding, another 10% said they would refer their client to another therapist to help them change their sexual feelings. And 17% — about one in six — reported that they had assisted at least one client to reduce his or her same sex attractions.

The study is based on a survey conducted in  2002-2003. The questionnaire was sent to 1848 practitioners, of which 1328 completed responses were returned, resulting in a remarkably high response rate of 72%. Participants were a geographically distributed random sample based on their membership in the following professional organizations:

  • British Psychological Society (BPS)
  • British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)
  • United Kingdon Council for Psychotherapy (UKPC)
  • Royal College of Psychiatrists (RPC)

BACP members were most likely to counsel clients to accept their sexuality and least likely to assist clients to change. Psychiatrists were most likely to refer other colleagues who might help clients to adjust to their sexuality.

The first question of the survey asked therapists how they would manage a client seeking to change their sexual attractions. The responses were:

  • Assist them to accept their sexuality: 731 (55%)
  • Assist them or give them treatment to change their sexuality: 55 (4%)
  • Refer them to another colleague who has more experience in helping clients to accept themselves: 310 (24%)
  • Refer them to a colleage who may help them change or redirect their same-sex feelings 131 (10%)
  • Assist them to gain more effective control of their sexual feelings with a view to reducing personal and/or social difficulties: 456 (34%)
  • Other: 491 (37%)

The “other” category is surprisingly large. There’s no insight into what those respondents might have in mind in this particular survey.

The 222 (17%) therapists who had tried to reduce or change their clients same-sex attractions reported treating at least 413 clients. (The structure of the survey only permitted examining up to five clients per therapist.) These therapists were asked about their clients reasons for wanting to change:

  • Confusion about sexual orientation: 236 (57%)
  • Social pressures including the family: 59 (14%)
  • Mental health difficulties: 45 (11%)
  • Religious beliefs: 28 (7%)
  • Gender confusion: 15 (4%)
  • Legal pressures: 14 (4%)
  • Heterosexual relationship difficulties (i.e. married): 9 (2%)
  • Victims of abusive relationships: 8 (2%)

These therapists reported very little follow-up after treatment. In 117 (28%) cases, there was no follow-up. In the remainder, the medial follow-up period was only eight months. Citing the American Psychiatric Association’s opposition to conversion therapy, the authors conclude:

Thus, it is hard either to understand or recommend the actions of the one in six psychotherapists, counsellors and psychiatrists who undertook these treatments. The qualitative data suggest that they made therapeutic decisions based on privileging client/patient choice where there was a wish to avoid the impact of negative social attitudes to same sex relationships. They appeared to take little account of the potential harm of applying treatments with no evidence for efficacy. Furthermore, the commonest reason for the referral was confusion about sexual orientation rather than an expressed desire to change it. It is well known that confusion is both a feature of a developmental trajectory, often part of the “coming out” story, and a common reason for seeking help. It appears unlikely that therapists were responding straightforwardly to the demands of patients as direct requests for change were very rarely reported.

Speaking to The Independent, Prof. Michael King was much more blunt:

He said: “There is very little evidence to show that attempting to treat a person’s homosexual feelings is effective and in fact it can actually be harmful.

“So it is surprising that a significant minority of practitioners still offer this help to their clients.”

He went on: “The best approach is to help people adjust to their situation, to value them as people and show them that there is nothing whatever pathological about their sexual orientation.

“Both mental health practitioners and society at large must help them to confront prejudice in themselves and in others.”

The study was conducted by Dr. Annie Bartlett (St. George’s, University of London), Dr. Glenn Smith (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Prof. Michael King (University College London Medical School). Together, they established the web site, which Prof. King introduced in a BTB guest post last September. That web site seeks oral history contributions in written, audio, or video form from former clients and therapists who participated in sexual reorientation therapies.

This study is an outgrowth of previous papers that the three have published on clinical attempts to change homosexuality. The British Medical Journal in 2004 published two papers which were oral histories of treatments since the 1950’s. Dr. Smith’s paper focused on the experience of patients, and Prof. King’s paper focused on the experience of professionals. Dr. Smith found that “The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term impact on individuals.” And Prof. King observed that:

With hindsight, professionals realised that they had not appreciated the influence of social context on sexual behaviour. Most now regarded same sex attraction as compatible with psychological health, although a small minority considered that the option to try to become heterosexual should still be available to patients who desire it.

Social and political assumptions sometimes lie at the heart of what we regard as mental pathology and serve as a warning for future practice.

In 1999, Prof. King and Dr. Bartlett published a historical overview of treatments of homosexuality in the British Journal of Psychiatry. That overview included accounts of electric shock and other forms of aversion therapy, which some therapiests continued to defend into the early 1980’s. They stated in their concluding remarks:

In December 1997, in documents released by the British government under a 30-year rule, it was revealed that ministerial approval was given for experiments in aversion therapy on gay men. Even today, criticism of the ‘treatment’ of gay men is regarded as mere political correctness. Few other psychiatric labels have led to such pain and disarray. This peculiar history has exposed the conservative social bias inherent in psychiatry and psychology, damaged the lives of gay men and lesbians, and provided grounds for discrimination.

…Mental health professionals in Britain should be aware of the mistakes of the past. Only in that way can we prevent future excesses and heal the gulf between gay and lesbian patients and their psychiatrists.

It appears that a surprising number of mental health professionals have not yet learned from the mistakes of the past.

Ugandan Gay Asylum Seeker Back In UK

Jim Burroway

March 9th, 2009

John Bosco Nyombi

John Bosco Nyombi

In 2001, John Bosco Nyombi, a gay Ugandan, had sought asylum in the UK based on fears for his safety back in his homeland. But last September, Britain’s Border Agency forcibly repatriated Nyombi back to Uganda, in violation of Mr. Nyombi’s due process rights and against official Home Office policy and procedures. A British judged responded by ordering the Home Office to return Nyombi back to Britain. Nyombi arrived on March 6. According to Gays Without Borders:

He fled to the UK from Uganda where homosexuality is illegal and carries a punishment of life in prison.

His case has attracted publicity in Uganda. Mr Bosco said in a statement seen by the court that, on his return to his homeland, his circumstances had become “quite desperate”. He had been beaten up during a period in detention and he had now gone into hiding to avoid being interviewed by the police about his homosexuality.

The judge said the evidence before him made it perfectly plain that Mr Bosco had come to the notice of the authorities, and this had added to the risk of his human rights being breached by reason of his homosexuality.

Mr. Nyombi’s March 6 return to Britain coincides with an anti-gay conference led by Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, which was in its second day in Kampala, Uganda. On that very same day, conference leaders announced a new recommendation that Uganda’s already draconain law against homosexuality be strengthened to force convicted gays and lesbians into sexual reorientation therapy.

British Prime Minister Weighs in on Prop 8

Timothy Kincaid

March 6th, 2009

California’s Proposition 8 has become an event greater than itself. No longer a vote on whether same-sex couples can call their relationship “marriage”, Prop 8 has become a symbol, a rallying cry, an event that transcends its happening. Protests over its passage have not been limited to the state’s borders, or even the nation’s.

A further evidence that this ban is representative of the global fight over equality for gay people came this week in London (BBC) from Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Speaking about Proposition 8 in California,

Mr Brown said “this attempt to undo good that has been done is unacceptable”.

He added: “This shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination.”

Those inclined to irony might note that same-sex marriage is not legal in England, either. However, over there the amost-marriage-but-by-some-other-name has federal recognition and in California it does not.

     Newer Posts »

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.