I have a hard time comprehending how any of us think that she should be permitted to tell pateients that she can cure "the gay" and charge them money to administer some kind of unproven treatment that may, and likely is, harmful, just because they come to her.  It's outright fraud.  It's like a physician selling an herbal blend, including known poisons, that he concocted to cure cancer, stating that it is a proven cure because it worked on a relative.

I know there are some alternative cancer treatments that physicians administer, but there are specific laws passed to permit cettain ones that are known to at least not be harmful, and they can't just cook up new ones.  Reparative therapy is a fraud that likely does long term harm to victims, and mental health professionals who offer it should be professionally disciplined.

Quote from: Miniar on January 17, 2011, 04:08:11 PM
Aside from Vexing's fine point, one has to also counter with wondering which other forms of serious psychological (if not also physical) damage people should be allowed to cause to themselves.

Infinite.  It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves.  That is the responsibility of the individual.

If I want to punch a wall until my fist bleeds, that should be my right to do so.  I don't need the government telling me how much damage I can or cannot do to my own body or mind.  Similarly, if one wants to try to change their sexual orientation (however ill-fated the endeavor may be) they should have the right to make the attempt.

Like I said, if Pilkington is to be convicted of anything, it needs to be real damage to a real person in a real case.  If Strudwick went into the therapy based on a lie and suffered damage because he wasn't prepared for the result, that is his own fault.  You don't walk into a lion's den and blame the lions when they attack.  The only evidence that should be relevant is any evidence he uncovered about former patients who actually did want to change, who suffered damage from the treatments administered.

From the sounds of it, Pilkington is using what amounts to a form of hypnosis (brainwashing).  This is a vile technique which can cause serious psychological problems which often take as long to correct as they take to put in place.  Hypnosis is very well studied.  It is already known how these types of mechanisms work in the brain.  All that should be needed for a real conviction is testimony of someone (a real person, not an imaginary personage drummed up by Strudwick) who suffered psychological damage from the results of the therapy.

Even without any conviction, she could still have her license removed if those forms of hypnosis are not approved by the regulatory board which oversees those types of practices.  Which, judging by the discussion, is exactly what is going on.  It sounds like the regulatory agency is not convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor a condition which can be changed by the types of therapies that Pilkington was employing.

Like I said, Pilkington is risking her career by making psychological assumptions which are not based on actual science.  It is her job to treat people based on the best methods known to science, not the best methods known by The Good Book.  If she wants to do that then she should be a preacher or a pastor, not a therapist.  If her religion conflicts with her line of work, then she needs to choose which is more important to her.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 17, 2011, 10:59:12 PM
Infinite.  It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves.  That is the responsibility of the individual.

If I want to punch a wall until my fist bleeds, that should be my right to do so.  I don't need the government telling me how much damage I can or cannot do to my own body or mind.  Similarly, if one wants to try to change their sexual orientation (however ill-fated the endeavor may be) they should have the right to make the attempt.

Except the difference between you punching a wall and this situation is that there's a "qualified professional" involved.
It would be more like going to a doctor as a left-handed person and have him smash your left hand with a hammer to break it as if you had been punching a wall, and not for any medically, psychologically or scientifically sound reason what so ever, but because you've been made to believe by overwhelming pressure from society and everyone you love that being left-handed is "wrong" and that you really should be right-handed.

Quote from: VeryGnawtyLike I said, if Pilkington is to be convicted of anything, it needs to be real damage to a real person in a real case.  If Strudwick went into the therapy based on a lie and suffered damage because he wasn't prepared for the result, that is his own fault.  You don't walk into a lion's den and blame the lions when they attack.  The only evidence that should be relevant is any evidence he uncovered about former patients who actually did want to change, who suffered damage from the treatments administered.

There's no mention of a criminal case anywhere in the piece of news.

Quote from: VeryGnawtyEven without any conviction, she could still have her license removed if those forms of hypnosis are not approved by the regulatory board which oversees those types of practices.  Which, judging by the discussion, is exactly what is going on. 

That is exactly what's going on.

Quote from: VeryGnawtyIt sounds like the regulatory agency is not convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor a condition which can be changed by the types of therapies that Pilkington was employing.

... That would be because it's not a mental illness.

Quote from: Miniar on January 18, 2011, 06:46:20 AM
There's no mention of a criminal case anywhere in the piece of news.

Then perhaps you can explain to me why so much legal language is used.  Maybe it's not a criminal case, but the article certainly sounds like legal precedent is being set:

Quote from: articleHer legal defence is being funded by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister, to fight the case.

She wants to keep her license, that's all.

People should have the right to cause whatever amount of psychological and/or physical damage they want to cause to themselves. They should be able to enlist the help of others within limits (that is, they shouldn't be able to enlist others to commit crimes against them, but any amount of talk therapy, biblethumping, crystal-waving, and the like is fair game).

However, accrediting and licensing bodies (whose entire purpose is to help people decide which practitioners can be trusted in a given field) are under no obligation to license or accredit people who do not practice in accordance with the accepted standards of the field.

People who wish to operate outside of accepted standards are free to do so (within limits - they can't do things like surgery that are illegal to do without a license for obvious reasons) but they aren't entitled to accreditation, or to the use of any professional titles that the accrediting bodies are responsible for regulating.

Undercover journalism is a perfectly acceptable way of revealing that a particular practitioner is operating outside of accepted standards.

There are no criminal charges in this case because no crimes are alleged to have occurred. There is apparently a legal defence fund because there has been (or will be) a civil action filed, in which the therapist is challenging the loss of her accreditation.

Quote from: kyril on January 18, 2011, 04:49:15 PM
There are no criminal charges in this case because no crimes are alleged to have occurred. There is apparently a legal defence fund because there has been (or will be) a civil action filed, in which the therapist is challenging the loss of her accreditation.

Thanks, that's what I needed to know.  I was confused because the article used the word "accused" multiple times.  It made it sound like there was a suit against Pilkington.

In the States, Dominatrix is a profession.  You can get a business license and go to town on some hinys.  If the dudes don't pay, thinking that you can't call the cops, you can have them arrested for theft of services.

I don't know for sure, but it might be possible for a licensed therapist to have a side business as a Dominatrix without losing her license.  However, I doubt she would keep her license for long if she started administering "Dominance Therapy" as part of her mental health practice.