Changes

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct.  The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct.  The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the theraputic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not sure what you mean.  Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not sure what you mean.  Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It's an issue of sourcing.  There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc.  These controversies need to be articulated.  What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy.  That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources.  Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It's an issue of sourcing.  There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc.  These controversies need to be articulated.  What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy.  That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources.  Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ridiculous.  On what basis?  Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ridiculous.  On what basis?  Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The question is over a medical diagnosis.  American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc.  No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, threre are many gay activists who have premeated the profeassions.  They may have a conflict of interest in pushing psuedoscience in pursuit of a politcal agenda.  This is well known and has been occuring for decades.  And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed.  There are other factors as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The question is over a medical diagnosis.  American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc.  No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions.  They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda.  This is well known and has been occurring for decades.  And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed.  There are other factors as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession.  The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it.  And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction?  You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned.  Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession.  The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it.  And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction?  You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned.  Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis.  It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets.  It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow.  The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them.  Who knows.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis.  It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets.  It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow.  The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them.  Who knows.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)