Counseling Ethics versus Religous Beliefs

The two prominent agencies in the United States in regards to licensing for therapy and counseling are the National Association of Social Workers and the American Counseling Association. When it comes to the issue of diversity these agencies have a clear code of ethics based upon the prevailing scientific evidence of the time.

However, an increasing number of cases of social work and counseling students who have religious beliefs which cause them to hold views of sexual orientation that oppose the scientific consensus are suing their universities on the grounds that their freedom of speech and religion are violated by being upheld to the codes of ethics of these professions.

Take for example the most recent case of a Georgia Graduate Student in a Counseling program, who argued that homosexuality is a result of "identity confusion" and a "personal choice" as opposed to the NASW's and ACA's view that it is innate. After allegedly attempting to persuade other students to her views and proclaiming interest in conversion therapies that are widely discredited by the scientific community, the University insisted that she take part in a remediation program. The program included sections to improve her writing skills, 3 workshops on diversity, a monthly meeting to discuss her research into LGBT groups, and increased exposure to members of the LGBT community including a suggestion that she attend Augusta's gay pride. She was informed that if she failed to complete the remediation then she would be dropped from the program. Through e-mails, the faculty encouraged her to accept other views as equally valid to her own and raised concerns that she would not be able to assist gay and lesbian clients as a counselor by choosing a view that was contrary to the ethical standards of the profession. She has chosen to sue the University on grounds that her freedom of speech and religion have been violated and that she is being forced to give up her Christian beliefs in order to stay in the program. She has yet to work with any clients, and as such, she argues there is no evidence that she cannot provide adequate care to members of the gay and lesbian community. At least 5 other cases such as hers have appeared in the last few years as a result of the clash between the code of ethics of counseling profession and religious beliefs held by those students.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-st...sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490&page=1

This of course leads to several interesting questions....

Should people, knowing that these professions have codes of ethics that may contradict their religious beliefs, choose schools which seek to enforce them?

Should these people be upheld to the professional standard that practice must follow evidence and as such, that the current evidence suggests that sexual orientation is not something that should be treated as a character flaw or disorder?

Should the standards of ethics be changed to incorporate competing religious views which are largely not based on peer reviewed evidence, but which are important to the individuals who hold them?

Does the Constitutional protections of individual speech and religion extend over that of organizational responsibility to provide competent and professional care in accordance with their own code of ethics?

Can an individual who holds the views that homosexuality is a sin, identity confusion, a personal choice/lifestyle, or something that needs to be changed; provide professional and competent care to members of the lesbian and gay community? Should such people be allowed to hold a counseling or social work license? Are such people obligated to refer clients of the lesbian and gay community to counselors who hold different views?

 

Interesting opinion. However, you missed the point entirely and you didn't really answer any of my questions. This has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with adhering to the ethical standard that practice must be based on evidence. But since you brought it up...

Why not discriminate against those who are taking part in a profession that bases its practice on scientific evidence but who refuse to adhere to the results of that evidence? What is counseling if it isn't based on scientific evidence? Why shouldn't the code of conduct discriminate against those who would not base their practice on scientific evidence? Do you think that practice that is not based on scientific evidence could be considered competent and professional care? When working as a counselor, should a person's religious beliefs take precedence over the scientific evidence?

 

Science is evolving. But counseling has become considerably more based on evidence and the code of ethics of that profession call for members to practice based on the best available evidence as opposed to whatever their whims or particular beliefs may be. As such, should legitimate studies not be done to provide a basis by which to propose alternative theories?

I never assumed anything of the sort. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality provides a great deal of evidence to oppose the current scientific consensus and which point out several disparities faced by the homosexual community. However, they have failed to provide credible evidence, are notorious for cherry picking data out of context, and do not submit their research for peer review. Recent studies of the Pacific also support trauma theories. However, this evidence does not account for why 30 years of research have shown that homosexuals can lead just as functional and happy lives as heterosexuals and it only suggest that gays and lesbians as a population are more likely to have been sexually abused. However, of the entire population of people who have been abused, most are heterosexual, rather than homosexual, and so that evidence does not indicate why they have not turned homosexual as a result of their abuse. As such, it does not indicate whether or not the homosexual population is simply more prone to abuse.

I didn't ask about "confidence", I asked about "competent". And I would need to see the data to determine whether or not that were true.

Interesting opinion. However, that is like saying a medical doctor should prescribe ginseng for breast cancer because the patient feels that herbs are a cure all for everything. The fact of the matter is that the counselor is the educated professional, and if they do not provide care based on evidence, then they are little more than a quack who is acting on whims, rather than what is truly in the best in interest of the patient. However, you are entitled to your opinion in this matter.

 

Interesting. The Boy Scouts as an organization are allowed to deny leadership positions and membership to those who they feel do not represent the values or standards of their organization. This could indeed be a sufficient Supreme Court precedent to argue that Universities and Counseling organizations are similarly justified in denying degrees or licensees on the basis of people failing to represent the values and standards of the code of ethics held by those organizations.

 

Would you mind posting this evidence?

Please post your source of the bolded above.

It's plausible, but is it credible? Over 30 years of scientific evidence has indicated that sexual orientation is something that should not be changed. If people have trauma, then their trauma should be treated, not their sexual orientation. If their sexual behavior or identity changes as a result of treating their trauma, then so be it, but the basis of their treatment, by most credible research, should not be their sexual orientation.

Certainly.

http://www.sexualwholeness.com/isw/resources/7592/haldeman1994.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/11/ABSTRACT /PREPUB/ABSTRACT/PREPUB/COMMENTS/abstract/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=dd02e6d2330545e5427e34c70995d6f7
http://www.bprcem.com/article/S1521-690X(07)00033-4/abstract

And of course, the American Psychological Association's position on sexual orientation, which has evolved considerably since homosexuality was removed the the DSM as a mental disorder back in the 70's.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

In any form of treatment, there are two goals of equal importance. The first is to cure the disease/disorder and the second is to see to it that the patient comes to no harm. Doctors are required to take an oath called the Hippocratic Oath that they will cause no harm to a patient and the Code of Ethics of the counseling and social work professions holds practitioners to the same standard. There is sufficient evidence that conversion therapies are in fact harmful to many of those they attempt to change, in some cases leading to suicide. That alone calls into question the efficacy of the practice. Your suggestion above ignores a very basic tenet of treatment. What is in the interest of the patient is not just to cure them, but to not cause them harm.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence to support the idea that conversion therapy succeeds in the first goal of changing sexual orientation. To the contrary, the best evidence put forth by organizations like NARTH has been found to be methodologically flawed and of little scientific use.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119400354/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

So regardless of whether the therapy might be helpful for some, it is harmful to others, and is therefore unethical to use. As I said before, if an individual has trauma that needs to be treated, then it is their trauma that should be treated directly, not their sexual orientation.

 

I look forward to seeing you data. Particularly the source that supports the idea that 4 out of 6 homosexuals were sexually abuse. I would love to see the study which argues that 67% of homosexuals were sexually abused.

I've read rampantly anti-gay literature that hasn't even claimed a percentage that high.

 

Relevant to this thread...

Anti-gay EMU social-work student loses appeal

 

I imagine if scientifically inclined people chose to go to a religious school then they wouldn't have anymore grounds to argue against the religious teachings of that school than a religious person has going to secular university which bases its teachings on science. Do you disagree? If I chose to go to a Catholic University, could I sue that school for discriminating against my beliefs when they compel me to accept the values and standards of that University?

I love turning the tables justme.

 

Does a public university have a right to enforce its course requirements?

If I go to XYZ Public University and choose to major in Butchering and then argue that I am a vegetarian and I feel it is immoral to kill or butcher animals, then do I have a legitimate case?

That is basically what is at stake here. A requirement of being a counselor is that you can work professionally and competently with members of a diverse population. It requires that you suspend your personal beliefs so that you can provide a service to a client that they may need. It doesn't require that you give up your personal beliefs; only suspend them for the duration of the service you are performing.

If you can't perform that simple task because of your religous beliefs, then you are just like the above example of a vegetarian student majoring in Butchering. You do not possess what is needed to fulfill the course requirements or to become a competent professional in that field.

As a social worker, I may be required to work with Christians. In that role, am I entitled to judge them because they may hold different values than me? Am I entitled to deny them services that they may need? Am I entitled to argue that they should change their ways or try to use therapy to change them? No. As a social worker, I am ethically bound to provide the best service I can to my client, without passing judgment. Why should a Christian be entitled to become a social worker or counselor if they do not have the capacity to do the same for gays and lesbians?