Watch the Channel 4 News report about Lesley Pilkington, the Christian therapist who lost her appeal against suspension from the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy for her appalling practice:
Below, Channel 4’s Jon Snow interviews Mrs Pilkington:
Rightly or wrongly, the appeal verdict said nothing about the validity of conversion therapy or reparative therapy, per se. It focused on Lesley Pilkington’s misconduct entirely aside from the suggestion that therapy can change sexual orientation.
Pilkington’s Christian supporters disgrace themselves by condoning the blatant intrusion of highly questionable personal beliefs into therapeutic practice. Even conservative Anglican Peter Ould has harsh words for Christian Concern, the legal organization that continues to defend Pilkington, saying that CC is guilty of “wilful blindness to the clear evidence that LP is not a good counsellor” and that she showed a “basic disregard for the fundamentals of counselling practice.”
The conduct of journalist Patrick Strudwick continues to be an issue, as he clearly deceived Lesley Pilkington about his intentions. While accepting Strudwick as a legitimate client, the BACP nevertheless (in the original hearing) castigated him for his tactics.
But the ethical debate of “how far is too far” in investigative, undercover journalism aside, Strudwick’s conduct cannot be used to excuse Mrs Pilkington’s disgraceful behaviour. I can only wonder how much worse the situation would have been if a trusting client had received her advice and accepted, with no evidence, her insistence that a member of his own family had sexually abused him. I can only be thankful this therapist was outed before she could wreak real havoc with people’s lives.
Lastly, let’s lay to rest a widespread myth: This case had nothing to do Christian freedom, being biblical or upholding “traditional Christian teaching.” Ex-gay and anti-gay apologists have increasingly used this kind of rhetoric to justify extreme views and practices. Note how, in the interview, Pilkington even claims that the belief that Freemasonry encourages homosexuality is simply part of a “biblical framework.” It is not. Nor is conversion therapy a traditional Christian teaching, although as the BACP findings clearly state, the suspension was never about that issue anyway.
Read the BACP findings on Lesley Pilkington’s appeal hearing here.
Too bad the interviewer didn’t do more research or he would have been able to respond directly to her use of the Spitzer study for evidence of change, and the notion that NARTH has never had any complaints from clients.
@ David Roberts….I too was disappointed that more research had not been undertaken to disprove what Lesley Pilkington was peddling (i.e. the Spitzer study and NARTH). A longer interview I’m certain would have found Lesley Pilkington’s views quite laughable at the very least….and at the worst, very dangerous.
I am relieved that she has been struck off and can not inflict her counselling techniques on others….still a lot of Christian counsellors/pastors etc. out there who continue to engage in reparative therapy and condemnation of homosexuality.
Here’s what I truly cannot understand: typically ANY kind of therapy, whether physical or psychology should be qualified as NECESSARY in a context of issues OTHER than sexual orientation.
Heterosexuals don’t have to blame their shortcomings or pathology on THEIR orientation. Anyone that uses a WRONGFUL diagnosis, is going to get the wrong result, from using the wrong approach.
For example, it’s not NECESSARY to cure left handedness or a curvy body. Regardless that our culture covets the opposite of that, doesn’t mean it’s NECESSARY to affect being right handed or being thin.
In fact, efforts to do so, have proven detrimental and formed another set of pathologies.
So how can a therapist ANYWHERE get away with wrongfully approaching orientation as NECESSARY to change?
I know of people who have thought their LACK of interest in sex at ALL was considered a problem.
But IS it really?
Once a person understands ASEXUALITY as an orientation, would an entire industry revolve around telling an asexual that their orientation will make them form or be pathological and that they deserve prejudice or discrimination for having it?
How is it that for one group’s orientation, it’s called immoral, and for another there isn’t nearly that kind of imperative to change it?
There is a seriously perverse obsession when it comes to homosexuality in that way. As we’re seeing, the younger and younger someone comes out and is able to SAFELY, the more we can all learn about gay people and their needs.
And THAT is the most essential point: if someone gay isn’t allowed to express that and in such an environment, how can a legit therapist assume it’s an ACQUIRED orientation or that orientation is acquired artificially at all?
For educated people, NARTH and all their believers work from a template that starts from the wrong place to begin with.
NOBODY but undercover writers can get at this, and such therapists avoid or complain about peer oversight.
Those would be but a few of MY questions to check the credibility and credentials of such therapists.
WE know these people aren’t as motivated by compassion as they want people to think.