Several months ago I told you
that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing
sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge
that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After
discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for
American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer,
I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here
it is.
Basic Research Question. From
the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable
individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to
heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer
this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the
question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in
sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.
The Fatal Flaw in the Study –
There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in
sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was
reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not
self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way
to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.
I believe I owe the gay
community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of
reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and
energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I
had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated”
individuals.
Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of
Psychiatry,
Columbia University
No comments:
Post a Comment