I am a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor in Idaho, and am submitting the text of a letter written to members of the Idaho Legislature, concerning the same proposals:
I am writing to address the ongoing debate and consideration of House Bill 52, concerning Conversion Therapy. I am a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor (LCPC) in the State of Idaho, and have been in private practice for 10 years. Over the past year or so I have heard of the controversy surrounding Conversion Therapy (CT), and the ongoing efforts to pass a law in the State of Idaho to prohibit the practice of this form of therapy, or what some refer to as Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). I personally have provided counseling services to several clients who would identify as LGBTQ. I have enjoyed working with these clients on the myriad of life’s stressors and issues that they face. I have found these clients to be wonderful, loving, caring human beings, and have enjoyed my association with them.
There indeed seems to be an ongoing debate as to the effectiveness of CT/SOCE. Some argue that the therapy has little to no affect on actually changing a person’s sexual orientation, while others argue it does help. There are also some who suggest that engaging in this therapy can be harmful to the client in several ways. What concerns me is, can those who espouse that CT/SOCE causes, amongst other issues, increased suicidality, actually scientifically prove that because of this therapy their suicidal ideation has increased? Or is it that the individual may have an increased suicidality because of other factors and life issues? The human psyche and emotions are indeed difficult to understand completely and accurately. Such a “measurement” that claims that indeed this is the case should be viewed with some level of skepticism.
Also, if you all are so concerned about the ‘ill-affects’ conversion therapy can have on people, WHY are you “protecting” only minors? Isn’t this something you should be concerned about for the ENTIRE population? (of course, I am not supporting that idea either).
When I first heard of CT/SOCE I was not familiar with this therapy and have endeavored to learn more and become educated on the topic. One of the first thoughts I had is the one that has been most concerning to me, and indeed is very perplexing: How can any counselor, body of counselors, or national association of counselors, endeavor to espouse a cause (efforts to ban CT/SOCE) that would tell a client, or group of clients, that they cannot receive the counseling help they seek with their issue (no matter WHAT the issue!). To me it is unconscionable that any professional counselor would say that this was ethical. As trained and licensed professional counselors we are taught that one of the guiding principles of counseling is nonmaleficence, to “do no harm”. If a client truly desires to change their behaviors and lifestyle (and let me emphasize – it is ALL about the client in counseling – we as counselors are NEVER to tell the client what to think or feel, or to persuade them against their will) -- if this client discovers that mental health providers in the state are prohibited, by law, from helping them with what they desire to do with their lives, then this client realizes they are without hope, or help, in working through and accomplishing what it is that THEY want to change in their lives. THAT to me is a recipe for disaster – one that would definitely increase suicidality amongst that population. To use a phrase from the 70’s – it “blows my mind” that any counseling professional would support such a proscription in the counseling arena. To me, it would be a very egregious and glaring violation of the counseling ethical code to prohibit and deny ANY person from receiving ANY form of counseling therapy. This would be a violation of the public trust placed in the helping professions in our state. To attempt to proscribe certain forms of therapy and counseling theories and practices is indeed stepping onto a slippery slope, and setting a dangerous precedent of governmental interference and dictum that would be misguided and ultimately harmful to the residents of the State of Idaho.
Regards,
John Hochhalter, LCPC, NCC
Maureen CookSeptember 27, 2019
when a person comes in who is suicidal, it is our responsibility to help them to see that their life is of worth and they should not commit suicide, how does that differ from someone who comes in and is convinced that they are not the gender they were born as. We owe it to them to speak candidly and truthfully to help them understand their feelings and investigate where their thoughts are coming from.
mucumsSeptember 26, 2019
Wonderful article
Raeann PeckSeptember 26, 2019
And what if that person's bishop is a therapist? Would counseling as a bishop overlap and cause him professional risk?
susan nelsonSeptember 26, 2019
religious freedom is most important! I don't understand why anyone would want to ban something that could be and is so helpful!
Robert StarlingSeptember 26, 2019
This is a vital issue and needs a "call to arms" NOW to protect our religious freedoms and the freedom to give safe, helpful therapy to those experiencing gender confusion. These issues were explored in depth at the "Stand4Truth Summit" conference held in Salt Lake City in 2015. There are a number of pertinent videos from that conference on Youtube, including this one talking specifically about the legal threats to the ability to practice positive therapy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QscYKhpfhU&list=PLoZh26zcXX90ib6gEgKAGbJOQCc0jIbvg&index=3
MICHAEL EDWARDSSeptember 26, 2019
God created two sexes, did He not ?
Linda SmithSeptember 26, 2019
This amounts to being REQUIRED to BULLY these minor children into submission.
Comments | Return to Story
john s hochhalterSeptember 30, 2019
I am a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor in Idaho, and am submitting the text of a letter written to members of the Idaho Legislature, concerning the same proposals: I am writing to address the ongoing debate and consideration of House Bill 52, concerning Conversion Therapy. I am a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor (LCPC) in the State of Idaho, and have been in private practice for 10 years. Over the past year or so I have heard of the controversy surrounding Conversion Therapy (CT), and the ongoing efforts to pass a law in the State of Idaho to prohibit the practice of this form of therapy, or what some refer to as Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). I personally have provided counseling services to several clients who would identify as LGBTQ. I have enjoyed working with these clients on the myriad of life’s stressors and issues that they face. I have found these clients to be wonderful, loving, caring human beings, and have enjoyed my association with them. There indeed seems to be an ongoing debate as to the effectiveness of CT/SOCE. Some argue that the therapy has little to no affect on actually changing a person’s sexual orientation, while others argue it does help. There are also some who suggest that engaging in this therapy can be harmful to the client in several ways. What concerns me is, can those who espouse that CT/SOCE causes, amongst other issues, increased suicidality, actually scientifically prove that because of this therapy their suicidal ideation has increased? Or is it that the individual may have an increased suicidality because of other factors and life issues? The human psyche and emotions are indeed difficult to understand completely and accurately. Such a “measurement” that claims that indeed this is the case should be viewed with some level of skepticism. Also, if you all are so concerned about the ‘ill-affects’ conversion therapy can have on people, WHY are you “protecting” only minors? Isn’t this something you should be concerned about for the ENTIRE population? (of course, I am not supporting that idea either). When I first heard of CT/SOCE I was not familiar with this therapy and have endeavored to learn more and become educated on the topic. One of the first thoughts I had is the one that has been most concerning to me, and indeed is very perplexing: How can any counselor, body of counselors, or national association of counselors, endeavor to espouse a cause (efforts to ban CT/SOCE) that would tell a client, or group of clients, that they cannot receive the counseling help they seek with their issue (no matter WHAT the issue!). To me it is unconscionable that any professional counselor would say that this was ethical. As trained and licensed professional counselors we are taught that one of the guiding principles of counseling is nonmaleficence, to “do no harm”. If a client truly desires to change their behaviors and lifestyle (and let me emphasize – it is ALL about the client in counseling – we as counselors are NEVER to tell the client what to think or feel, or to persuade them against their will) -- if this client discovers that mental health providers in the state are prohibited, by law, from helping them with what they desire to do with their lives, then this client realizes they are without hope, or help, in working through and accomplishing what it is that THEY want to change in their lives. THAT to me is a recipe for disaster – one that would definitely increase suicidality amongst that population. To use a phrase from the 70’s – it “blows my mind” that any counseling professional would support such a proscription in the counseling arena. To me, it would be a very egregious and glaring violation of the counseling ethical code to prohibit and deny ANY person from receiving ANY form of counseling therapy. This would be a violation of the public trust placed in the helping professions in our state. To attempt to proscribe certain forms of therapy and counseling theories and practices is indeed stepping onto a slippery slope, and setting a dangerous precedent of governmental interference and dictum that would be misguided and ultimately harmful to the residents of the State of Idaho. Regards, John Hochhalter, LCPC, NCC
Maureen CookSeptember 27, 2019
when a person comes in who is suicidal, it is our responsibility to help them to see that their life is of worth and they should not commit suicide, how does that differ from someone who comes in and is convinced that they are not the gender they were born as. We owe it to them to speak candidly and truthfully to help them understand their feelings and investigate where their thoughts are coming from.
mucumsSeptember 26, 2019
Wonderful article
Raeann PeckSeptember 26, 2019
And what if that person's bishop is a therapist? Would counseling as a bishop overlap and cause him professional risk?
susan nelsonSeptember 26, 2019
religious freedom is most important! I don't understand why anyone would want to ban something that could be and is so helpful!
Robert StarlingSeptember 26, 2019
This is a vital issue and needs a "call to arms" NOW to protect our religious freedoms and the freedom to give safe, helpful therapy to those experiencing gender confusion. These issues were explored in depth at the "Stand4Truth Summit" conference held in Salt Lake City in 2015. There are a number of pertinent videos from that conference on Youtube, including this one talking specifically about the legal threats to the ability to practice positive therapy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QscYKhpfhU&list=PLoZh26zcXX90ib6gEgKAGbJOQCc0jIbvg&index=3
MICHAEL EDWARDSSeptember 26, 2019
God created two sexes, did He not ?
Linda SmithSeptember 26, 2019
This amounts to being REQUIRED to BULLY these minor children into submission.
ADD A COMMENT