Artist’s depiction. Do not try this at home.
So this is a tough one.
I mean really — it’s a tough one.
I can’t figure it out.
—
Governor Brown recently approved a bill that bans “reparative therapy” for any individual under 18 years of age. The governor tweeted:
This bill bans non-scientific “therapies” that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine.
The subject is undoubtedly controversial. Proponents of GLBT rights celebrated, along with their army of doctors, therapists, child-behavioral experts, survivors and supporters. Proponents of reparative therapy threatened to sue, flanked by their supporters, including some constitutional law experts.
The whole time I’m reading this CNN Article, I’m thinking: “what the hell did the Governor say?”
What he said was (clearly I’m paraphrasing): if it isn’t supported by science and it hurts kids, we can ban it.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
To a certain extent, he’s right. The State has a valid interest in protecting it’s citizens from fraudulent medical practices and it’s been doing so for a long, long time. It’s the main reason why we aren’t hassled by our local snake-oil salesman every Saturday morning. This is a very good thing and a government service we all continue to need in some fashion or another. One might even argue it’s a fundamental right of the governed in modern society.
To a certain extent, he’s also very wrong. The State has a very limited ability to ban anything, particularly when science says it’s wrong.
Let’s take a closer look at the logic behind the claim. Is it true that we can ban anything that science says is wrong and that does (or might) hurt kids?
Books? Nope. Can’t ban those. I don’t care if the Bible says the world is 4000 years old and science says it’s off by a few billion here or there. The Bible (depending on one’s interpretation . . . please don’t write me a nasty note) also pretty much advocates beating kids. Still can’t ban it.
Food? Nope. Can’t ban that. If I want to go to the store, buy a 12 pack of Mountain Dew and hand my toddler a can of soda, there ain’t nuthin’ Uncle Sam can do about it. Sure, there’s a very long list of harmful side effects supported by science . . . Still can’t ban it.
Sports? Nope. Can’t ban those either. You can slap a helmet on your kid and send him tumbling down the grid iron, fling your child fifteen feet in the air while flipping off a trampoline, send them zooming around the go-kart track at fifty-five miles an hour, or have them hurl a hard round object at another child who proposes to defend himself with a large metal stick . . . all activities that science says hurts kids. Still. Can’t. Ban. It.
How about something absolutely more relevant. How about other forms of “quackery” as Governor Brown calls it.
Astrology: Legal. You want to tell your kid that his day is governed by the constellation Sagittarius and the retrograde of Venus? Knock yourself out. Science says you’re stupid and your kid being told that he’s not responsible for his own actions due to the unknowable universe (again, please . . . no angry letters . . .) can’t be good for your kid, but we can’t ban it.
Fortune Tellers: Legal. You want to go pay $5 to discuss your kid’s questionable mole over a crystal ball? Sure. We condone that one. Science says you should still wear plenty of spf 50, but if your kid gets melanoma even though your fortune teller told you it was going to be a cloudy day . . . well, we’re cool with that.
Psychics: Legal. Pulled too many colors this week in class? Maybe your desk is haunted? Perhaps you’re possessed? Maybe a little poltergeist has too much influence? Well, you get the idea.
How about one that’s not so silly.
Not vaccinating your child: Legal. Science universally declares you to be a rotten parent if you do this one. You can go right ahead and put your child’s very life at risk AND WORSE the lives of hundreds (if not thousands) of other children, too. Banned? Nope. Perfectly legal. <– **Note, also has a cultish following.
Let’s take a look at the flip side of the coin.
Cigarettes? Yeah, we can ban those. They cause cancer, they’re addicting, and if you want to chose to kill yourself by smoking them, you ought to be an adult. You can’t give your kid a cigarette and ask him to light up with you on a Saturday night.
Alcohol? Yeah, we can ban that and we can ban it for longer than just about every other Western Country. Why? Because up to a certain age, booze causes developmental delays. After that point . . . well, I dunno . . . but we can ban it. If you want to get some sort of liver disease as an adult, well, then you’re on your own.
—
So, where are we at on this one? How do we as Californians justify the ban of a practice that science says hurts kids? We clearly don’t apply this razor universally, either because we’re unwilling to or because it doesn’t make sense to. Clearly there’s a trigger point for a gut reaction that says: “Yeah, that ain’t right. Ban it.” But, we’re better than that.
We are a society of laws and order. Like it or not, the rules that regulate our behavior, including those that prohibit behavior, have to have some vague semblance to logical reasoning — preferably a strong semblance. If we don’t and we agree that we can make laws because the end justifies the means, we’re really no better than the racists and bigots we claim to despise.
—
I have absolutely no wish to over simplify this law, the impact it has on the GLBT community, or to embarrass Governor Brown. I only wish to highlight the incredibly slippery slope that must be closely observed whenever an agent of the government moves to ban anything. The first reaction of the consenting electorate ought not to be of jubilation, but rather it should be one of fear, trepidation, and furious resolve to ensure that justice is not being trodden upon in the name of tolerance.
Are we really sure this is the right thing to do? Do we understand the consequences? Is the sacrifice of liberty justified?
Do we agree with the logic of this bill? If so — how far does the slippery slope of state intervention in parental decisions regarding their children’s mental health go?
*In the ’70’s when Cults were all the fashion…..we remember the famous “Rainbow Bridge” which Jimmy Hendricks attended several times in Hawaii or Jim Jones and his infamous Jonestown Suicide event…..it seemed there were drug cults and drug cover health food stores on every corner in San Fran or Hollywood – even out in the valley.
The Porn Industry had just taken off into the stratosphere and 13 and 14 year old girls from across the country were hitchin a ride from the great Midwest and East Coast to join up. Hundreds of television shows addressed the “then major problem” of girls being sold into prostitution, taken in bondage for porn cults and the rest.
In response to this, were a bunch of out of work or retired cops and private detectives that were making bucks tracking down the missing girls. Soon, gay young boys were being recruited to the streets of Hollywood as well. Soon, the modern day “Fagan’s of Oliver Twist fame” had complete stables of “whatever you want” for lots of rich guys with gold chains.
There is really nothing to make us believe that much has changed much. Governor Brown remembers that these kids, were recaptured by some parents. Once off the streets – many had been abused by their family and friends…wound up proscribed for a variety of “prescription drugs”…..to try and get them off addictions to herion and other hard drugs. The psychological damage to these folks was immense and our society will be paying the price for many years to come. Imagine these folks as parents and supposedly responsible adults?
Many will say that it is simply none of our business. Stuff happens and that is just the way it is. That is a hard description and a complex one. Using religion, using psychological methods to mentally alter some underage folks behavior for LGBT behavior or against it…..seems…..unseamly! Typical High School Consulars have had a long history of both doing very good things for kids and additionally for doing some very bad things. School Nurses additionally, along with School Psychologists, along with School Administrators and all the ADHT drugs are also an issue in all this discussion. Let’s just say…the issue is “very complicated” and certainly needs further deep discussion and dialogue.
Can Government solve all of the world’s problems? That depends on the various unintended consequences of trying to use “Band Aid Legislative Efforts” when the issue at hand probably requires much more research and qualitative assessments.
Here’s a thought experiment, actually two variations of it, that may shed light on how we think about this:
(1) Z’s parents are afraid that 16-year-old Z is going to abandon their religion and will therefore end up in Hell, so they sign Z up for “therapy” with someone recommended by their pastor who browbeats Z though a sort of “basic training” that leaves Z cowed, intellectually stunted, and intolerant of outsiders. Should society be able to intervene?
(2) Same thing, but the religion is Scientology.
Going to psychics and fortune tellers is a spiritual endeavor and therefore closer to a religious practice than fraudulent medicine. Because of our zealous regard for the First Amendment, you can’t ban that.
However, therapy to turn a gay person straight is clearly fraudulent medical practice because it’s done by a supposed medical professional.
Unless the therapy is meted out in a religious setting — like your pastor reading anti-gay passages from the bible and helping you “pray away the gay” — that is clearly not illegal under Brown’s law because it is a religious exercise, similar to your fortune telling example.
Brown’s law is a solid law that regulates unethical and damaging medical practices. It’s no different than making it illegal for a doctor to proscribe rat poison for the flu. It merely clarifies the law to make sure that this caustic therapy is in that category of bad medicine.
A solid point, Mr. Berg. The ban is limited to those practitioners who wish to keep their state issued certifications, which falls in a much clearer “fair use of the ban” space.
But, we’re still stuck without a clear law or rule that we can apply unilaterally. The best I can extract from your post is a small addition to the front of Mr. Brown’s tweet: if the medical community feels that science says that something is wrong and that it harms kids, we can ban it . . .
So . . . we’re ceding our right to receive the medical treatment that we choose to the medical profession at large? We do that pretty regularly, but are we willing to admit that patient care isn’t just really between a woman and her doctor? It’s really more like a woman, her doctor, and what the state says doctors are allowed to do? Not sure that’s gonna fly. **sound of a giant can of worms being opened**
Just playing devil’s advocate. Help us get to the distilled light of reason.
*Anyone can get a PhD in anything. All they have to do is write a paper, get peer review to buy off, write an essay, get peer review to buy off, write a book and get Barnes and Noble to carry it.
*That was the standing joke at USC back in the ’60’s…..when one great mind got a PhD in “How to raise chickens in the back yard!” Another one got a PhD in “How to Shoot Marbles Effectively!”
The State University System then has to buy off on these dumb things…..or “their peers” will not buy off on their “next best thing!”. It isn’t completely this bad……but you don’t have to spit far to find lots of similarities.