Friday, February 15, 2013

Reparative Therapy

Yesterday, the panel of advocates at the Church Center sought to ban reparative therapy labeling it a human right violation. Reparative therapy has constantly been the center of attraction for various controversies. Last year, the state of California enforced legislation to ban the therapy.  
Contrary to this, I believe the therapy should not be banned and that it’s not a human right violation. In fact, I believe it solidifies human rights by giving an individual more freedom in choosing his or her sexual orientation, and the government shouldn't have the right to influence him or her. Drawbacks in such therapies include possible medical or psychological implications. But then again considering that most medical procedures have potential risks, such drawbacks shouldn’t be a criteria to ban the therapy. There are innumerable cases wherein individuals have benefited from the therapy and are now protesting its ban. I believe the situation is similar to an individual’s right to be able to choose his or her own religion, no matter what religion he or she is born into. If he or she wants to undergo therapy, one may only suggest otherwise, but should not have the right to coerce him or her out of it.   

Another potential harm in banning reparative therapy is the probability of unlicensed counselors to indulge in illegal practices. These practices conducted with necessary supervision and inadequate procedures might cause serious illness/ injury to the individual. Such illegal efforts have already come to light in California.

Thus, as a whole, I believe reparative therapy should not be banned, as it’s only going to result in more harm than good.  

No comments:

Post a Comment