Mel Sheesholtz, Ph.D, voices skepticism about Destructive Trends in Mental Health (Amazon link), a new book edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings.
However, Sheesholtz is much more skeptical of a review written for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality by NARTH member A. Dean Byrd.
In his critique of the book and the NARTH review, Sheesholtz:
- questions the timing of Byrd’s review — the book was published in March, but it was not reviewed until July 5 amid the Love In Action media circus;
- interprets the book’s call for patient freedom in choosing therapies as a defense of the right of patients to be misled and ripped off;
- wonders whether the authors and Byrd would support a patient’s right to set therapeutic goals if the patient sought a reparative therapist’s help to become more homosexual rather than less.
Of Exodus International, Sheesholtz says, “it provides another example of what happens to health care in a theocracy. … In the American theocracy [that] Exodus advocates, religious dogma cobbled together by power-hungry fanatics takes precedence over everything else, including science, common sense, reality and their own history.”
I agree with the book’s sentiment that there’s a bit too much social activism going on in professional circles — but it seems to me that the activism is coming from all sides, not just those who affirm individuals’ pre-existing sexual orientation.
One day I too shall write a book:”What theocracy do you chose with your mental health?”Where to begin…
I agree with the book’s sentiment that there’s a bit too much social activism going on in professional circles…
In professional circles in the so-called social sciences. I sincerely doubt that you would get social activism regarding, for example, physics, unless someone wanted to suggest that members of a binary star system are immoral because they wanted to “pair up.”
/tic
As I’ve made evident, I don’t put much stock in “social sciences.” Maybe the practitioners will turn them into science someday. But today? No.
Raj said
No raj, that will not be a problem unless the stars are both boys or both girls… you know, it will endanger all boy-girl binary stars if we ever started recognising same-gender star orbits… (ref: FoF)
My post looks as stupid as I thought.However, if I could only get Agape Press to publish it… well, it MUST be true!