Plans to ban supposedly “abusive” conversion practices for people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria risk undermining the principles of democratic society, a counselling group has warned.
The International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice (IFTCC) questioned whether a truly democratic society can operate with a professional framework “that recognises only one contested professional philosophy, excludes professionally accountable alternatives, fails adequately to recognise pastoral care provided outside the regulated healthcare system, and restricts the availability of lawful support for individuals who freely seek help consistent with their own preferences, beliefs, values and life goals?”
The government has said its planned conversion therapy ban would only apply to “abusive” practices and would not impact on freedom of speech, freedom of religion or parental rights.
Critics, including a range of Christian organisations and The Free Speech Union, have warned that the term “abusive” is ill-defined in the proposed legislation. A parent refusing to affirm their child’s gender identity, or a doctor advising a patient against undergoing gender transition surgery could find themselves accused of damaging the emotional wellbeing of those in their care and guilty of “abuse”, they warn.
In its own statement, the IFTCC, said the proposed ban would make “one contested therapeutic philosophy the effective standard by which lawful therapeutic and pastoral practice is judged”.
The group added that was “unequivocally” against all forms of abuse, further noting that abuse is already illegal.
The group added that the legislation only seemed to consider the possibility that trying to move someone away from homosexuality or transgenderism could be “abusive”, but not towards these identities.
The legislation would mean that LGBT-identifying individuals who no longer want to be so would find it incredibly difficult to find the help they desire.
The IFTCC recently unsuccessfully concluded a two-year attempt to gain accreditation from Britain’s Professional Standards Authority (PSA).
In declining to give accreditation the PSA had failed “to establish a framework of professional standards, supervision, safeguarding, accountability, ethical oversight, continuing professional development, and complaints procedures for practitioners working with individuals who voluntarily seek support consistent with their own values, beliefs, and life goals”, the IFTCC argued.
In essence, the IFTCC were arguing that non-affirming therapists be held to certain professional standards and be subject to a regulatory framework, rather than left out in the cold.
Concluding its statement, the IFTCC said, “We believe professional competence, ethical accountability and public confidence should characterise all responsible therapeutic and pastoral practice, whether provided within or outside the regulated healthcare professions. Responsible governance is not a concession to legislation; it is a hallmark of good professional practice.”
