ReviewThe Linacre quarterly2015
Professional care for unwanted same-sex attraction: What does the research say?
Review in The Linacre quarterly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, national and international medical and mental-health associations typically have emphasized the potential harmfulness of professional care for unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA or homosexuality) and behavior. State legislatures in the US and legislative bodies in other countries either have passed or are considering passing laws which would penalize professionals who provide professional care for unwanted SSA-to minors and/or adults-including the loss of the license to practice. This paper was written as a response to the present situation in the UK. The paper reviews the universal ethics of all medical and mental-health professionals to avoid harm and do good (non-maleficence/non-malfeasance and beneficence); discusses the documented potential for harm when using every mental-health treatment for every presenting problem; clarifies steps taken by the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (Alliance), its clinical and research divisions, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Institute (NARTH Institute) and its international division, the International Federation for Therapeutic Choice (IFTC), to promote ethical professional care for unwanted SSA; clarifies the injustice and presumed ideological biases of the medical and mental-health associations' warning about the potential for harm for psychotherapy only for unwanted SSA and not all psychotherapy approaches; and documents that the research purporting to show this harmfulness, in the research authors own words, does not do so. Recommendations to promote scientific integrity in the conduct and reporting of relevant research are offered. Lay Summary: There has been a lot of controversy about the potential harmfulness of professional care for unwanted same-sex attraction and behavior (SSA or homosexuality). This paper reviews the ethics of all medical and mental health professionals to avoid harm and do good; discusses the known potential for harm when using any mental health treatment for any problem; clarifies steps taken to promote ethical professional care for unwanted SSA; notes the injustice and possible biases of those who warn about the potential for harm of psychotherapy for unwanted SSA; and documents that the research said to show this harmfulness, in the research authors own words, does not do so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.