The study can be read here. In a nutshell, 200 self-selected individuals (many recruited through “ex-gay” ministries) were located for the study. One of the criterion for being a subject was that they had (or believed they had) made some change from homosexual to heterosexual. They were interviewed by telephone and asked to assess their own sexuality before and after their efforts to change. Many of them had actually not gone through psychotherapy with a psychologist, and almost none had seen a psychiatrist. Many were in religious programs or used self-help books. I think it is not surprising that people selected for the study out of the group that volunteered to be subjects reported some change in sexual orientation when that was the criterion for being in the study.

I think it might have been more forthright of you, as a psychiatrist citing, for people not in the mental health professions, a controversial study by another psychiatrist who had repudiated his own work to at least mention the fact.

I think anyone who wants to can read the study and judge for themselves whether it proves anything at all. I certainly don’t think it does.

Here are a few points to show that the findings are worthy of being taken seriously. First, consider just two statistics. 85% of the males and 70% of the females prior to trying to change did not find the gay or lesbian lifestyle emotionally satisfying. Following attempts at change, of the 158 participants who were no longer in therapy, only 2 (both males) reported any overt homosexual behavior at post-test. Think about that for a moment, only 2 males and no females engaged behaviorally in sexual acts with same-sex partners. There are many other statistics for you to ponder, including the sharp drop in depression. As a final point, every participant (200 in total) reported some change. I point out the sexual behavior statistic because it tells us much from a scientific viewpoint what the participants’ actual behavior is. Finally, I refer you to Dr. Spitzer’s excellent Discussion section in which he anticipated criticism as you have tried to give. He refutes the criticism masterfully. The participants do not at all appear to by lying.

Please note that you, David, have ignored the 800 pound guerrilla in the room, which is the evidence that Dr. Spitzer was hounded by those who wish to have us think as they do, and at all costs.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/…/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes

Surely you are aware that Spitzer himself has repudiated the study and apologized for it.

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

Here is part of a letter Spitzer wrote to Dr. Ken Zucker:

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

Dr. Spitzer commented on his study, “Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed [prior to treatment] (males 43%, females 47%), but rarely that depressed [after treatment] (males 1%, females 4%.). To the contrary, [after treatment] the vast majority reported that they were ‘not at all’ or ‘only slightly’ depressed (males 91%, females 88%).”(2.)

These findings are consistent with the clinical experiences of many mental health professionals who respond to the request of individuals to help them with their unwanted SSA with a focus on strengthening male self-esteem through CBT.

1.Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17.
2. Ibid. p. 412

Hank,

That doesn’t follow at all. There are many ways behavioral therapy techniques could be misused for evil ends. You could use systematic desensitization to help someone overcome a phobia or to train hit men to overcome whatever qualms they have about killing. Banning the latter would not require banning the former.

We have not heard yet, and I don’t think we are going to hear in this discussion, any specific descriptions of therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation. Dr. Fitzgibbons has cited a study and claims “men with unwanted SSA can experience healing by developing healthy non-sexual relationships, i.e., friendships, with other men . . . . . ” My question is—Did anyone in the study actually change from homosexual to heterosexual? It is one thing to help someone with an unwanted sexual orientation to cope with distress, to feel more comfortable with himself or herself, to try to redirect energies into other areas, and even to try to help that person function heterosexually. It is another thing simply to set out to change the person’s sexual orientation.

I think the law is flawed in that it is extremely unclear what it would ban and what it would permit. But that does not mean there could not be a good law that prohibits certain kinds of alleged therapies purporting to change sexual orientation.

You can disagree about whether reparative therapy lies within or outside the set of “moral actions to which an individual can consent,” but the state of California isn’t being inconsistent or hypocritical if it doesn’t consider consent to be the sole relevant criterion.

Several major research studies of adult and adolescent males with Same Sex Attractions have demonstrated low self-esteem as being a major conflict in their lives.

Of course, correlation isn’t causation. I mean, if that were the case, high self esteem would tend to cause Blackness, and people with low self esteem would be at risk for Latinoism: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-02633-001

Interestingly, if you were right and therapy to help self-esteem does help prevent/’repair’ homosexuality – ‘self-esteem therapy’ is not forbidden by SB 1172.

Consistent? Consistent with what? Their views on minors receiving contraception and abortions? Except that the notion that a child could be too young for those is past their even comprehending.

Hi, Mary. I’m Ray Ingles, and I think adult, informed consent is necessary for sexual activity and related medical procedures. Only in extreme circumstances should children receive contraception or undergo an abortion without their parents’ consent – ‘extreme’ in the sense of ‘threat to the child’s life’.

(I think parents who don’t make contraception available to their kids are profoundly stupid, just like parents who are so dogmatic about underage drinking that their kids would rather drive drunk than call their parents and get a ride. But freedom is the right to be wrong.)

Sure, there are other people who talk about consent but want to interfere with how other people raise their children for their own good. But they are no more common than, say, people who want to ‘protect the sanctity of marriage from the gays’ but favor relaxed divorce laws. Actually, I think they’re less common.

So, anyway, are you willing to argue the positions on their merits, or should we just snipe back and forth?

It does not penalise either the child or its parents seeking or, indeed, receiving such treatment.

The law forbids “Sexual orientation change efforts” defined as “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation…”