Thursday 16th January, 2014
Reply to Mr Geraint Davies by Dr Mike Davidson
I should like to thank the Rt Hon Geraint Davies, on behalf of our conference, for his
contribution this morning. Thank you for your sincerity as a politician in coming to address us,
to share your vision and concern, and for the integrity that that represents.
I invite you to consider, Mr Davies, that this conference also seeks to approach this
controversial matter of banning professional help for unwanted same sex attractions, with
sincerity and integrity. We stand with you in the drive to regulate counselling and
psychotherapy. We do not claim outcomes that are comparable to the flick of a switch. We
believe that some people will achieve more than others in their aspirations for change; indeed
some may not change at all. We agree with you that no person should be coerced into any
therapy – it must be truly voluntary, based on advanced informed consent. Those who have
planned our conference today however, firmly reject the idea that such therapy should be
banned. On what grounds should a married man with children be forbidden the opportunity to
reduce unwanted same-sex attractions in order to hold his family together?
Sincerity and integrity – yours and ours – are insufficient to resolve the disagreement between
us, however. Both of us are sincere, but one of us must be wrong. Who will arbitrate our
positions? Would you acknowledge, sir, that we must together appeal to a higher authority to
rule over our debate: the rule of scientific research and evidence? It would be a tragic error to
ban any and all modalities of sexual orientation change efforts – and even any modalities that
might be developed in the future – without first establishing a solid scientific basis for such a
ban.
It is not enough to say, “such and such an institution says it is so, therefore it must be so. Some
leading psychologists in America are voicing concern that their cherished institutions are
following what they call the “well intentioned path to harm”. Arnold Lazarus, Distinguished
Professor at Rutgers University, says that “Organized psychology has been captured by a small
group that is dumbing down psychology while pursuing its own agenda. This oligarchy
threatens to ... wreak harm on an unsuspecting public that trusts and depends on psychology.”
No fewer than three past presidents of the American Psychological Association add their voices
to this expression of concern:
1. Nicholas Cummings, says, “data confirming the effectiveness of therapy are being
denied.”
2. Robert Perloff says, “patients’ rights are being trampled”
3. Jack Wiggins says, “misguided idealism and social sophistry guarantee that good
science and practice will not go unpunished.”
But the problem exists not only in America. Our conference today will undertake to show, from
the primary source material, that all is not well in the UK either. Institutions such as the Royal
College of Psychiatrists and the UK Council for Psychotherapy, although asked repeatedly and
once again this morning, will not provide scientific proof that homosexuality is innate and
immutable, nor that therapy is never effective. Neither will they give the name of a single
scientific paper that has found a causal link between therapy and harm.
1
Why is this? Because we believe that such proof simply does not exist. The language of science
has been replaced by the language of ideology – when we ask scientific questions we get
ideological answers. Would you assist us, Mr Davies in asking these two respected professional
bodies to provide this information so that we can lay to rest once and for all the concern that
your Bill is ideological and not scientific in its basis?
Specifically we would ask you please to request them to provide you with the names of:
- two or three peer reviewed studies which have used accepted scientific measures and
found that change therapy has no degree of effect
- and two or three studies which show a causal link between such therapy and harm to
the client
And if you do not get satisfaction from them, as we have not, we would appeal to you to show
once more your integrity by withdrawing your Bill from Parliament.
Finally, thank you again for opening our conference this morning. We understand that time
constraints mean that you are unable to stay for the proceedings. We will offer you a summary
of the sessions, and invite your response. I have no doubt that our day will include many
dissenting voices, but let the record show that we have listened and engaged with your point of
view. I hope too that you will encourage those who oppose your Bill to speak. We have not
heard their voice in the debate so far. We ask you to continue discussions by acknowledging
the paucity of objective data and by listening to our request for evidence-based research. We
offer ourselves as people who seek truth and help for a vulnerable, dishonoured and
marginalised minority – those who have a right to shape their lives towards achieving goals that
include heterosexual functioning to whatever extent may be possible for them.
Thank you
Dr Mike Davidson
Director
CORE ISSUES TRUST
www.core-issues.org
[email protected]
2