Quote from: Incarnadine on October 05, 2012, 12:59:45 PM
I hope you'll understand my perspective of frustration when a working (though not as well as many would hope) method is banned. Again, while many disagree with the moral connection, there are still many of us who view it as a strong possibility. While many may view that perspective as bigoted and hateful, it is still a strongly held perspective, and at least in America ought to be allowed.
Psychology (and social work) itself cannot be separated from morality. If it can be, then why help the individual who needs help? If the only answer is to make them profitable to society, then psychology is indeed separated from morality. If there is any other purpose to therapy or study, then morality is involved. An attempt to remove a morality that one disagrees with is not the same thing as removing all morality. The logical question becomes that if psychology is financed for moral reasons, such as helping the less fortunate or easing someone's suffering, then who gets to decide which moral reason is better than another?
I absolutely understand your moral dilemma! I respect you for standing up for what you feel and think. I am at a place of standing up to be myself as a female. I have an update coming, and that will be in another forum here. The conflict of morality comes in for both the suffering person and the therapist (psych doc, psychologist, social worker, etc.) for the clinical professional, the conflict has to do with very strict licensing standards and medical care standards which tend to reflect the state standard, but even more strictly. State licensing / conduct laws state that no doctor or other clinical professional holding a state license can impose or use one moral standard over another, with the rule across the board being "do no harm".
The greatest question isn't "who gets to decide which moral reason is better than another" but, is instead, "which treatment will be most beneficial and is that benefit from treatment going to outweigh the risks that come with it?" As you can see, this puts medical treatment in the proper perspective.
These are the realities involved in all of this. In my mind, from my own point of view, no religion should tell someone that they are unwanted, or that their gender identity / sexual orientation is unwanted, unless the person themselves truly feel that way even with the removal of the religious teachings. If, minus the religious concerns, you feel it (your orientation or gender identity) is wrong...there are avenues to explore that and help you find out if your feeling of "wrong" comes from a bigoted social expectation, political bigotry, fear of safety being violated by phobic people, or if it comes from a deep and genuine place. My advice as a fellow forum user is to talk about this with a trained professional and see where it goes.
If you decide not to be who you know you are, or if you discover that it was just a passing moment in time due to factors such as trauma or other conditions that affect how a person sees themselves, you are at least doing it under clinical guidance. In the end it is YOU who has to make that call, and all a clinical pro can do is help guide you through it.
For the record, I don't respect you any less as a person for your thoughts because YOU have a right to your position and feelings just like anyone else. I wouldn't want anyone attacking my views, so I choose to treat you and others as I want to be treated. I am enjoying this conversation because I think it opens up what is really important for discussion, and we need that. Hearing each others thoughts and feelings is more helpful than we sometimes realize.
