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.
