Comments on: Something for the weekend sir? http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/2009/04/27/something-for-the-weekend-sir/ Responding to and stimulating debate about the many subjects that interest and drive the large, diverse, and intellectually hungry medical humanities community. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:01:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Steven Reid http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/2009/04/27/something-for-the-weekend-sir/#comment-33 Steven Reid Fri, 29 May 2009 09:44:32 +0000 http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/?p=31#comment-33 Thanks for your comment. I'd be happy to read the evidence in support if you could point me in the right direction. The only evidence I could find consists of satisfaction surveys which did not look particularly rigorous (including the Spitzer study). I'm not sure what you mean here by 'active' homosexuals, but are you suggesting that being gay should disqualify you from undertaking research? The survey by Bartlett and colleagues was published by BioMed Central which unlike most journals also publishes the paper's peer-review process. Have a look at this and it may allay some of your concerns about a conspiracy, although I doubt it. Thanks for your comment. I’d be happy to read the evidence in support if you could point me in the right direction. The only evidence I could find consists of satisfaction surveys which did not look particularly rigorous (including the Spitzer study). I’m not sure what you mean here by ‘active’ homosexuals, but are you suggesting that being gay should disqualify you from undertaking research? The survey by Bartlett and colleagues was published by BioMed Central which unlike most journals also publishes the paper’s peer-review process. Have a look at this and it may allay some of your concerns about a conspiracy, although I doubt it.

]]> By: Phelim McIntyre http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/2009/04/27/something-for-the-weekend-sir/#comment-32 Phelim McIntyre Tue, 26 May 2009 11:27:06 +0000 http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/?p=31#comment-32 Mr Reid - I would advise you to actually read the evidence that shows that people can change. To note that the statements against reparative therapy come from the gay and lesbian special interest groups within groups like the American psychiatric and psychological associations and, as in the Royal College of Psychiatrists statements, are written by active homosexuals. As are Drs King and Bartlett who did the research. I notice that there is no concern about the fact there is no research into the safety or effectiveness of counselling people to accept their sexuality (so called Gay Affirmative Therapy), or the fact that those professionals who are not willing to help people change their sexuality are breaching their clients human rights to choose and to self-actualisation. This is not screwball theology coming from a lunatic fringe but a proper therapy with nearly 100 years of clinical support, unlike gay affirmative therapy which has very little if any support. But let's ignore that to be politically correct. Mr Reid - I would advise you to actually read the evidence that shows that people can change. To note that the statements against reparative therapy come from the gay and lesbian special interest groups within groups like the American psychiatric and psychological associations and, as in the Royal College of Psychiatrists statements, are written by active homosexuals. As are Drs King and Bartlett who did the research. I notice that there is no concern about the fact there is no research into the safety or effectiveness of counselling people to accept their sexuality (so called Gay Affirmative Therapy), or the fact that those professionals who are not willing to help people change their sexuality are breaching their clients human rights to choose and to self-actualisation.

This is not screwball theology coming from a lunatic fringe but a proper therapy with nearly 100 years of clinical support, unlike gay affirmative therapy which has very little if any support. But let’s ignore that to be politically correct.

]]>