To the Editor:
Re “In Win for Right, Justices Reject Gay Therapy Ban” (front page, April 1):
As a psychiatrist, I write with serious concern about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday rejecting a ban on conversion therapy for L.G.B.T.Q. minors.
In my 35 years of clinical experience, I have encountered several patients who underwent such therapy, and it did not change the sexual orientation of a single one. Many of them did, however, develop profound and lasting shame, and an impaired capacity for healthy intimate relationships.
The harm was not incidental. It was the predictable outcome of telling people that who they are is broken and can be fixed.
Virtually every credible medical organization in the country — including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association — has condemned conversion therapy as both ineffective and harmful. Studies show that youths subjected to it are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.
Consider this parallel: If a left-handed child, living in a right-handed world and perhaps in an entirely right-handed family, asks a therapist to change him or her, would we honor that request? Or would we recognize that the wish to change comes not from the child but from the shame imposed upon that child?
The medical profession’s first obligation is to do no harm. On that duty, the Supreme Court has given us no guidance.
Paul Browde New York
To the Editor:
As an internal medicine physician, I am aghast at the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, removing the ban in Colorado on conversion therapy and allowing therapists to seek to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of their young gay patients or clients.
In my decades of experience, I have seen many questionable recommendations from other health care providers. Fortunately, we have always had licensing and state regulations to protect patients from unsound practices. To reduce clinical guidance to merely a matter of free speech is reckless and irresponsible.
When clinicians substitute their fringe opinions for sound, evidence-based medical advice, they must be professionally restricted. All people are free to espouse their views outside of the exam room. No one, however, should be allowed to practice in a way that puts patients in danger, as conversion therapy has been shown to do.
John Butler Huntingdon Valley, Pa.
Calling All Teens: Are you a teenager with something to say? The New York Times’s Learning Network invites you to write a public-facing letter about an issue that matters to you. The Open Letters Contest runs until April 8.
An Immigrant Story
To the Editor:
Re “Migration Stories of 9 Americans Who Will Decide a Birthright Rule” (news article, April 1):
Is it only nostalgia that frames our support for immigration? When did immigrants, the men and women who historically contributed so much to our society, become a threat? Profiled as criminals?
The background story of our Supreme Court justices was enlightening and moving in its depiction of those seeking asylum and prosperity here. It’s a story so many of us share.
On Feb. 24, 2017, I accompanied my friend Bipasha, born in Calcutta (now Kolkata), to the U.S. District Court to witness the ceremony of her swearing-in. The hall was full of people who complimented our country by choosing it. The anticipation, relief and optimism were palpable.
We all rose for the judge, a Black woman, who began by saying most Americans arrived here from elsewhere — in the case of her ancestors, not of their own volition. She closed by saying she looked forward to seeing the new citizens in her courtroom as they practiced their civic duty by serving on juries.
Many wept as we pledged allegiance to the flag. Our celebratory lunch was, naturally, in Chinatown.
Rebecca Okrent South Wellfleet, Mass.
A List of Jews at Penn?
To the Editor:
Re “Federal Judge Approves Trump’s Effort to Obtain a List of Jews From Penn” (news article, April 1):
There is no legitimate reason for the University of Pennsylvania to compile a list of Jewish students and employees and their contact information or for a government agency to request such a list.
If the government seeks information relating to suspected antisemitism at Penn, let it send a general inquiry to everyone on campus and let anyone of any religion feel free to respond either publicly or anonymously.
Any attempt to identify all Jewish students and staff members or pressure them to self-identify is surely a violation of freedom of religion.
Judy Olinick Middlebury, Vt.
The post A Supreme Court Ruling for a Discredited Therapy appeared first on New York Times.
