Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

==

Questions

==

• What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
• How did that relate to modern science at that time?
• What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

==

Detailed Analysis

==

In the 1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a number of experiments in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it is not uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy. President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were.

Elder Oaks stated:

"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

Aversion therapy is a standard technique

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[1] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [2]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

Citing of state of the art therapy should NOT be taken as an endorsement of such therapy. It just helps to understand how aversion therapy is used in general.

History of aversion therapy and homosexuality

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4)

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [3] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation. The World Health Organization stopped considering ego-synotic homosexuality to be a mental illness in 1992.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[4]

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbate distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. There is a risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not known in the 1970s.

BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement too minor to include. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality. The major research was done by a single graduate student, Max McFord, who did not remain at BYU after graduation. BYU did not pioneer the therapy and it stopped therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. It was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. People volunteered for the therapy and it followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients were also reported by patients at BYU.

Academic freedom at BYU

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that church could have done. The church did not endorse what McBride did, but it had little power to stop it. Graduate students at BYU have significant academic freedom to pursue what interests they want. Not all graduate students at BYU are members of the church, and it would be difficult for the church to impose restrictions about what can be researched without a good reason for doing so. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

==

Answer

==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards put out by professional societies. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little power or reason to interfere with these experiments. Research conducted by graduate students at BYU are usually conducted without any input from the church.

==

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

==

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

FairMormon web site

External links

Printed material