I will examine how ethical and philosophical frameworks have informed responses to conversion therapy practices. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality, specifically with human conduct and behavior. Philosophy is a systematic way of thinking about fundamental questions regarding reality, existence, knowledge, values, and meaning. These disciplines provide theoretical foundations for understanding moral judgments and decision-making, which can be applied to issues related to sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) - also known as "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy."
The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and many other health organizations consider SOCE harmful and ineffective, and have called for its discontinuation. Their position reflects an ethical framework based on protecting individuals from potential harm and promoting wellbeing. This approach aligns with the principle of nonmaleficence, which dictates avoiding causing harm or unnecessary suffering to others. The medical community recognizes that SOCE can cause significant psychological distress, trauma, and even suicide among LGBTQ+ individuals who undergo it. It also violates principles of autonomy by denying people's rights to self-determination and bodily integrity.
Religious groups such as the Catholic Church and some evangelical denominations maintain a belief that homosexuality is sinful and against God's will. They may argue that SOCE is necessary to help individuals overcome their temptations and live according to biblical teachings. This perspective derives from a philosophical framework centered around religious beliefs and values.
There are several flaws in this argument: firstly, there is no scientific evidence to support claims that SOCE works; secondly, SOCE can lead to emotional and physical harm; and thirdly, it contradicts the idea that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and religion.
Another ethical consideration is whether SOCE should be legally banned. Some proponents of conversion therapy claim that it is an expression of free speech and religious liberty protected by the First Amendment.
Courts have ruled otherwise, citing public safety concerns and the lack of evidence supporting SOCE effectiveness. A legal framework focused on protecting individual rights and preventing discrimination supports these rulings. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently classified SOCE as a form of torture, further emphasizing its unethical nature.
Moral and philosophical frameworks play a crucial role in shaping responses to conversion therapy practices. While some groups rely on religious doctrine and personal convictions to defend SOCE, others prioritize evidence-based science and human rights. The debate highlights tensions between freedom of expression, religious freedom, and protecting vulnerable populations from harm.
Ethics and philosophy provide valuable tools for evaluating the morality and efficacy of SOCE.
In what ways do ethical and philosophical frameworks inform responses to conversion therapy practices?
The ethical framework informs that it is important to respect individual autonomy and freedom of choice when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity. It requires professionals to avoid using coercive or manipulative tactics to change someone's sexuality or gender expression. Conversion therapy practices are considered unethical because they are often based on harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ+ individuals and do not consider their unique circumstances.