|
What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. You can't sign an arbitration contract to let a doctor bleed you for pneumonia or treat your syphilis with mercury without recourse to the courts when it kills you.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Isn't it illegal? I mean most of the places I read about are situated in Mexico or some island in an effort to evade legal action in the United States. It's still legal in some states, although there is a Florida lawmaker trying to ban it there Jarmak posted:Is there evidence there was any gay conversation therapy? I thought it was just some of the counselors told him being gay was a sin. I'm not a lawyer or anything and I have no idea what constitutes malpractice for someone claiming to be providing medical services like addiction treatment, but if giving known demonstrably harmful quack psychological counseling to someone in your care for treatment isn't illegal, it should be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Telling a gay person that you're treating for psychological and physiological dependence on drugs that they're bad for being gay and they should stop is abuse. If you're treating someone medically you should be held to pretty high standards. I don't think the counselor should, for example, be able to tell patients "God wants you to have sex with me" even though it would be perfectly legal for me to say that to a random person on the street.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
I don't think there should be this weird lawless zone where you get to tell people that you're treating their medical and psychological problems and get their trust and obedience, but you don't have to follow any standards and you get to say "no it's just bible camp lol" when your quack treatments harm them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Okay so do you not understand what actual gay conversion therapy is? Cause when I say "abuse" I don't mean "being an rear end in a top hat", I mean poo poo like intentionally inflicting serious lifelong trauma so that people suffer severe PTSD symptoms when they feel homosexual attraction. No, I understand what it is, but I don't think that just because they didn't give him electroshocks or bury him in ice or any of that twisted stuff, that I think people claiming to be treating someone's psychological and medical conditions should be able to use their position of authority and trust to legally give the patient harmful advice like "don't be gay anymore, god says so". If you want to do that, then run an ordinary bible study and don't advertise yourself as a treatment center. Once you start claiming that you're treating someone then yes I think you should be held to standards of professional conduct and you no longer get to just say whatever you want, like "you need to stop being gay to get better" or "you need to have sex with me to get better" or "you know what's good for that: bleeding yourself a quart of blood a day" or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
CuckEverlasting posted:Are you fucktards even actually talking about the loving case anymore? What does whether the patient's participation is voluntary or not have to do with whether it should be legal for someone advertising themselves as a treatment center to give proven harmful medical or psychological advice. Like I don't get what one has to do with the other, should I be able to sell radium water as Jesus' Health Tonic as long as people agree to drink it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
"Aligning your chakras" is just imaginary stuff that doesn't do anything. I'd say there's a difference between that and giving a patient proven medically harmful advice. If the APA came out and said that reiki was psychologically harmful and linked to depression and suicide, no I don't think you should be allowed to sell it as a treatment of anything, and I don't think you should be able to recommend it while you're treating someone and then say "oh no that part where I told my patient to do something dangerous was just my beliefs lol  "
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
The part where the people claiming to be treating someone for drug addiction went and told a gay person he needed to not be gay anymore? Are you claiming that's not harmful, or are you claiming that it's okay to give people harmful advice if you keep your prices low, or what are you saying.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But, again, there is no allegation that Christian values were offered as medical advice. Christian values have not been proved medically harmful, and even if they were statistically correlated, I wouldn't find that sufficient grounds to curtail someone's freedom of religion. (If we're abandoning the concept of freedom of belief, that's a whole different discussion.) I think you're treading on dangerous ground. If a Reiki practitioner claimed that their technique was just as effective in treating tumors as chemo, I would agree that false claims such as that should be illegal. But if a religious leader tells his followers that God forbids blood transfusions, as Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses' believe, should he be arrested for giving bad medical advice? You're conflating several things here. You're conflating "don't be gay" with "Christian values", those aren't the same thing at all. You're also conflating something a pastor might say in general with what someone specifically claiming to be treating your medical condition might say. My pastor could say "will you have sex with me" or "God wants you to have sex with me" to a parishioner, but I don't think someone advertising themselves as a counselor and taking that role of authority with a patient should be able to say those things. Do you understand the difference between a "goes to the same church" relationship, and a therapist-patient relationship?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For these Christians, "don't be gay" is one of their values. It's not our place to dictate that. Going to a facility for rehabilitation instead of jailtime for a medical issue like drug addiction seems like a counselor-patient relationship to me. Would you be comfortable if counselors were loving the people in their care, since you don't think there's an authority and trust relationship there? I'm not comfortable allowing organizations that claim to offer criminal rehabilitation but don't have to follow any standards or ethics because oh if we hurt someone it was just bible study. Having to follow the same rules as the rest of society isn't an attack on Christianity. E: Also when your charges could literally go to jail if they don't get a passing grade from you, I don't think you get to play the "oh I'm sure he could tell which parts were the program and which were just optional friendly advice!" card. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:...and now apparently rape as well? Oh okay so you do agree there is a power relationship here and the counselors at these places should be held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior than a bible study leader. Okay good glad you agree? Jarmak posted:You're conflating what now likely looks like some non-medical counselor making rear end in a top hat comments about homosexuality with running a literal torture the gay away camp. Again I don't think people should get to style themselves counselors, claim to be able to rehabilitate people, and take in people with psychological problems who are faced with jailtime if the counselor doesn't approve of their progress and then go "oops I'm not trained or even baseline competent in what I claim to be able to do, don't hold me to any standards of conduct!" Why are you so against holding anyone to any sort of professional standards in any thread? Maybe people who are assholes to patients with psychiatric problems shouldn't, uh, be licensed to counsel anyone? And maybe the state shouldn't let unlicensed therapists practice at all? Or at least not allow them to require their patients to waive their right to the court system and agree to let some sharia law kangaroo court handle claims of abuse? I am not comfortable with people who want to be able to take over the state's job of rehabilitation being able to demand that their patients agree that they not be subject to the court's oversight and instead their fellow fundy friends get to hold them to even lower standards than the already-abysmal standard of our criminal justice system. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is one hell of a slippery slope though, because many medical procedures are dangerous or have nasty consequences or side effects, and may not always be effective. If it's malpractice to give someone a procedure with some risk of negative side effects which may not be effective at treating the core problem, then half of the medical field is malpractice - particularly cancer treatment, which already shows up in the courts more than its fair share. No it isn't. that's the job of the AMA and the APA, to define what procedures are ethical if risky and which are dangerous and unjustifiable. Somehow we managed to ban radium water without banning chemotherapy so I don't think the slope is as slippery as you claim and it is in fact possible to shut down camps that drive kids to suicide by telling them to pray the gay away without taking everyone's bibles and banning Christianity. Main Paineframe posted:The problem with banning unlicensed therapists from practice is that it's really hard to ban people from giving advice. At some point you have to draw a legal distinction between "therapy" and "listening to people's problems and then giving them advice", and it's really hard to come up with a place to draw the line that doesn't leave room for loopholes, especially if you're trying not to ban mentoring or enrichment or religious programs and groups. Incidentally, Teen Challenge's site doesn't use the words "treatment", "counseling", or "therapy" anywhere. Instead, they claim to offer "structure", "education", "Christian mentoring that can help young people find their way back to who they were before they got lost in life-controlling problems", and opportunities to "discover a new identity in Christ" and "acquire a new value system that [...] helps them become productive, healthy members of society". This is the problem I have, if they never claimed to provide treatment or have qualified counselors then the court shouldn't be sending people there. And I don't think "but his mommy asked to" is a good reason: laypeople aren't qualified to make judgments in professional fields and the court shouldn't just send people off to whatever random place sent their mom a brochure. Maybe Teen Challenge is all happy bible fun times for everyone (although I doubt it if the counselors are telling kids to pray the gay away), but when you face jailtime for not satisfactorily completing the program it becomes coercive. The court should absolutely look into whether people are qualified to treat people before sending them there, it's ridiculous that a judge sends them somewhere where being incompetent is its excuse for not being held to standards of care. Main Paineframe posted:Everyone has a legal right to willingly agree to arbitration. There aren't any exceptions for specific fields that I'm aware of, and if there were, they certainly wouldn't be for a field as nebulous and vague as therapy. The mother apparently didn't see any problem with agreeing not to sue when she pushed for her child to be put into that program. Note also that arbitration agreements only protect the parties from civil cases. If the state thought that any of Teen Challenge's conduct rose to the level of, say, criminal negligence, they'd be in court and the agreement wouldn't do a thing to stop that. Right that's why Florida should shut down bible camps that tell kids to pray the gay away, then there can be criminal consequences for doing it and it won't matter that their marketing tricked a layperson into agreeing to forfeit her right to seek redress in the courts and let some fundy kangaroo court make the decisions about liability. Or at the very least the state should never agree to send people to places like that no matter how glossy their brochures were. Main Paineframe posted:Teen Challenge doesn't seem to have been "trying to take over the state's job of rehabilitation" - it was the patient and his family who wanted to do it so badly that they persuaded the state to accept it. If they were really that bothered, they were free to try the state's version of rehabilitation instead. No I think it's the state's job to make sure they're turning over prisoners to actual qualified counselors, not stupid bigoted incompetent assholes who are going to make everything worse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:And this brings it right back around to my point that the courts and society as a whole does not treat addiction as an actual health issue but as a failing of moral character that is to be punished and can be overcome by virtue. The court isn't sending him there for "treatment" in a medical sense, it's sending him there for rehabilitation to fix a character flaw. I think we need to address this as a society first and foremost - seeing addiction as a disease rather than a moral failing - and everything else just kinda falls into place after that. Yeah I agree with you here
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:wiping your rear end with the First Amendment No I'm not, as you note the carveouts for pseudoscience and assorted bullshit exist because congress explicitly chose to create them. The courts have traditionally interpreted the commerce clause broadly and I have a hard time accepting that if congress decides to start properly regulating the snake-oil industries that the court will suddenly reverse and decide harmful fake medicine is protected speech (okay well maybe this Supreme Court would, I need to wait for one of the 5 Hobby Lobby judges to die). I have a low opinion of homeopathy and faith-based bullshit whenever they try to make empirical claims and I have no interest in protecting that, although you're right that practically I'm unlikely to see the kind of laws I want because of the power of the bullshit artists and the weird ability of hucksters to gin up ridiculous fears of impossible Christian persecution to keep regulators from being empowered to scrutinize their crap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, I agree that homeopathy, dietary supplements, and such should be regulated by the FDA. But talking is not and will never be regulated by the FDA, not even if it includes the words "God" or "Bible", and if Congress decided to ban discussing life problems and decisions with your pastor then you'd better loving believe the courts would have a thing or two to say about "free speech" and "religious freedom". You know there's a reason slippery slope is a fallacy right? There's a world of difference between talking to your pastor bout stuff, and someone posing as a treatment counselor giving you harmful false recommendations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: The Problem Attic > Bible Study, Apple Pie, America Under Attack By The Perfidious Jew Media
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I guess requiring counselors to adhere to professional standards of care with their patients wouldn't protect the patient from rando janitors nor from other patients, what's your point? Is that a reason not to have standards of care?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 07:06
|
|