Psychological Association Considering Discriminatory Regs

[Ghostwolf]

The midwest continues to sink in terms of how willing they are to show their hate and disgust for GLBT people.
They're in the midst of attempting to over ride the APA's non-discrimination policies in Nebraska.
They managed to pass the discriminatory regs but then it got over turned..
Now the Catholic Church is attempting to strong arm the NPA to get their way and get those regs BACK!
Seeing is believing.
(Imagine yourself gay ,suffering horrible depression, without support and at the end of your rope.. you go into a mental health clinic and find yourself denied services due to one thing. You're gay. WORSE, the absolutely refuse to refer you to someone who IS willing to help you!
In Nebraska, Catholic and Christian psychologists are encouraged to throw gay people out the door!
Seeing is believing.
This is an article from the Nebraska Psychological Association. Please note just how deep and involved this issue has become (involving the DHHS and other such entities).

An Attempt to Establish Discrimination in Licensing Code of Ethics Continues by James K Cole, Ph.D

In the NPA July newsletter I reported on an attempt by the National Catholic Conference to introduce a regulation change to the Psychology Licensing Board that would endorse the right of psychologists to discriminate against clients by refusing psychological services, or even referrals for services, based on a claim by providers of a superior religious or moral conviction. The proposal, misleadingly labeled a "conscience conviction" policy, focuses primarily on excluding gay clients from receiving behavioral health services, but also, as stated in the CC letter to DHHS, it would potentially prevent needed behavioral services to clients based on a client's religion and sexual identity as well as a host of other classes of individuals judged to be living in sin. It opens Pandoras box to a morally preverted regulation that fundamentally alters the core reason for our Code of Ethics: Do no harm. This proposal is unique to Nebraska. According to the APA Practice Directorate there is nothing remotely like it in another other state in the United Sates of Canada.
The good news is that the licensing regulations can only be written by licensing boards. The bad news is that the DHHS, state attorneys, the Board of Health and the Governor must approve proposed regulations before they become a part of the existing licensing regulations. What the "political powers" can do is prevent other proposed regulations needed to improve current licensing regulations from being processed through the state system. In effect the has been a persistent attempt to coerce the Licensing Board to accept the CC discrimination proposal by refusing to pass the needed regulations on to the Board of Health. CC has obvious political clout in Nebraska.

On July 10, I planned to present testimony to the LMHP licensing board (The Board of Mental Health Practice) opposing the CC proposal (apparently they never actually reviewed it), trusting instead the DHHS, had previously voted to accept the CC proposal. Unfortunately I had a seizure caused by cancer cells to the brain and was unable to appear before the Board. Fortunately, the CEO for Nebraska Social Work read my paper to the Board. While hospitalized waiting for a craniotomy, a Board member called me at the hospital and said the Board agreed "100%" with my argument and consequently voted to reverse their decision to accept the CC proposal.
This means the LMHP Board is united with the Psychology Board in refusing to accept the CC proposal. At their last board meeting I was able to meet with them to think them for the courage they showed in changing their position.
There have been about six individual private (was this legal?) and public meetings between the CC representatives and the Psychology Licensing Board or representatives of the Board. In all meetings DHHS attempted to encourage a compromise or solution. CC has continued in all meetings to insist that their proposal be accepted. The Board of Psychology has consistently resisted any change in our Code of Ethics that involves discrimination. You should be proud of the arguments made by the Chair of the Licensing Board and other members of the Board in resisting this morally corrupt proposal.
In a bit of good news, Dr. Joann Schaefer, the chief negotiator for DHHS, recently presented the following proposed discrimination statement (Note words in bold added by Dr. Carver and S. Sumrall):
Credential holders must provide professional assistance to patients/clients without discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic status, disability, gender, gender identity, health status, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. If the practitioner is unable to provide such services for any reason, the credential holder must refer to an appropriate provider based on the behavioral needs of the clients/patients, or direct such patients/clients to an appropriate behavioral health professional association."

Not unexpectedly CC refused to accept this statement, but for the first time Dr. Schaefer appears to agree with the Board's position. (She may have privately agreed all along.) The bad news is that she apparently continues to be pressured by the politically powerful to accommodate the Catholic Conference proposal or some version of it. Consequently the above anti-discrimination statement is moot. As of the writing of this article there has been no movement in actually resolving this attempt to pervert our Code of Ethics.
My question is: What statutory authority gives a religious lobbyist or organization, or any private interest organization, authority to advance or prevent from advancing licensing regulations proposed by licensing boards?
Finally, it appears to me that further delay on behalf of the CC proposal represents a potential restraint of trade issue: the right of licensed psychologists to practice consistent with licensing regulations and the Code of Ethics.
To quote Mr. Welch's statement to Senator McCarthy at the June 1954 hearings: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?"
James K. Cole, Ph.D
================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ==============================================
Article concerning the debate via the Lincoln Journal Star:

The debate over sexual orientation and religious conviction has spilled over into state rules for licensed psychologists.
Nancy Hicks - Lincoln Journal Star
June 12, 2009
--
The debate over sexual orientation and religious conviction has spilled over into state rules for licensed psychologists.
Psychologists should be able to refuse to treat - and refuse to refer clients - because of religious or moral convictions, Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, said during a licensing rules hearing Thursday.
The conference also supports a similar "convictions of conscience" rule for licensed counselors, social workers and marriage and family therapists.
Without any conscience clause, Catholic Charities in Omaha and Catholic Social Services in Lincoln might have to stop hiring licensed counselors and psychologists, Cunningham said.
The Lincoln agency provides about $100,000 in free mental health services, he said Thursday.
While most ethics codes for professional counselors and psychologists allow professionals to refuse to offer services based on ethical or moral convictions, the codes generally require the professional to refer the client.
But even referring clients could be a violation of conscience when the service violates moral or religious convictions, Cunningham said.
Having a specific conscience clause in licensing rules also helps avoid practical problems, others at the hearing said.
Without a moral exemption, a psychologist who believes homosexual relationships are immoral might be required to counsel homosexual couples on building a better relationship, said Edward Stringham, a Lincoln psychologist.
Stringham pointed to a 2001 federal court case where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals supported an employer who fired a counselor for refusing, on moral grounds, to provide relationship enhancement counseling to a lesbian.
That decision demonstrates the legitimacy of concerns by counseling professionals who fear that declining to provide services could bring adverse legal consequences, he said.
But another Lincoln psychologist said the conviction of conscience language opens a Pandora's box.
It could allow any provider to discriminate against virtually anyone -as long as they claim a conflicting moral or religious belief, said James K. Cole, who represented the Nebraska Psychology Association at the hearing.
There have been no known problems nationally or in Nebraska with claims that psychologists are forced to compromise moral or religious values because of the national ethics code requiring them to help refer a client, he said.
And the refuse-to-refer clause is morally wrong, he said.
"I have provided psychological services to individuals convicted of murder, and I have never had to compromise my moral belief that killing is wrong," said Cole, a forensic psychologist.
"I have seen sexual offenders including individuals who are sexually attracted to children and who have abused children without ever having to compromise my moral belief that this behavior is wrong," he said.
The convictions of conscience clause is already a part of proposed rule changes for counselors.
It is compromise language worked out between the Board of Mental Health Practice and the Nebraska Catholic Conference this winter.
The proposed rule changes for psychologists does not include the convictions of conscience clause. There likely would be a second hearing if the licensing board decided to add it, according to the hearing officer.
http://www.journalstar.com/news/loca...1be423c73.html

================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ==============================================
A report on the situation via New Nebraska.
Nebraska Catholic Conference Calls For Unconscionable "Conscience Clause"

by Kyle Michaelis
Mon Jun 22, 2009

The debate over sexual orientation and religious conviction has spilled over into state rules for licensed psychologists.
Psychologists should be able to refuse to treat - and refuse to refer clients - because of religious or moral convictions, Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, said during a licensing rules hearing Thursday. The conference also supports a similar "convictions of conscience" rule for licensed counselors, social workers and marriage and family therapists.
Without any conscience clause, Catholic Charities in Omaha and Catholic Social Services in Lincoln might have to stop hiring licensed counselors and psychologists, Cunningham said. The Lincoln agency provides about $100,000 in free mental health services, he said Thursday.
While most ethics codes for professional counselors and psychologists allow professionals to refuse to offer services based on ethical or moral convictions, the codes generally require the professional to refer the client. But even referring clients could be a violation of conscience when the service violates moral or religious convictions, Cunningham said.....
Without a moral exemption, a psychologist who believes homosexual relationships are immoral might be required to counsel homosexual couples on building a better relationship, said Edward Stringham, a Lincoln psychologist....
But another Lincoln psychologist said the conviction of conscience language opens a Pandora's box. It could allow any provider to discriminate against virtually anyone -as long as they claim a conflicting moral or religious belief, said James K. Cole, who represented the Nebraska Psychology Association at the hearing.
There have been no known problems nationally or in Nebraska with claims that psychologists are forced to compromise moral or religious values because of the national ethics code requiring them to help refer a client, he said.

http://www.newnebraska.net/diary/186...science-clause

[BishopIoan]

This is wrong on so many levels that I do not know where to start. Firstly, the Catholic Church and all the other homophobic groups need to keep their nose out of things which do not (or at least should not) concern them. Every time that any kind of LGBTQ positive regulations are passed, these people feel it is their God-given right to meddle.

If an LGBTQ person is depressed and cannot get help because a therapist will neither help them due to homophobia, or because of church/homophobic meddling and the person subsequently tries to kill or harm himself--and this can be proven--I believe it should be prosecuted. Not that the person felt that their moral code would not permit them to treat the person but that they also refused to refer them to a therapist who could be of help to that person.

Why do these people seem to think that their "conviction" entitles them to act inhumanely? I keep coming back to "Judge not lest ye be judged".

One of the things I would like to see is far less religious interference in secular matters. The sad thing is that the Catholic Church and others of their ilk are tarring those who value tolerance and kindness over a robotlike adherence to what they THINK Jesus said with the same brush.

[offog]

I am just appalled by this stuff. If you refused professional services to someone because of their skin color, you'd get into all kinds of trouble. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think GLBT-phobia is just like racism.

Right now in Saskatchewan, the law says marriage commissioners (who come under Provincial authority) are required to perform marriages for any adult couple who applies, including same sex couples. The Provincial Government is considering a law that allows for a "religious exemption". (The Saskatchewan Party, which is conservative, is in power right now.) That would mean a marriage commissioner could refuse to perform a marriage for certain people if doing so would go against his/her religious beliefs. The Government is currently waiting for a court ruling on whether this would be against the Charter of Rights. I sure hope the ruling goes against the proposed legislation.

Good to you folks with the fight on this issue with psychological counselling. I still don't frigging believe this is happening. Catholic organizations do stuff like this and then they wonder why their congregations are shrinking.

[SolApollo]

My first meeting w/ a psychologist about dealing w/ my sexual orientation (6 years ago) referred me to the infamous Exodus International for "reparitive therapy." She used some of the techniques on me (she was a conservative Christian & due to questioning myself, took it at face value), which obviously don't work (as we know, sexual orientation is not a choice). Luckily, I was referred to a psychiatrist that told me the truth (it is not something than can be changed), and the psychologist was removed from my case (she was not disciplined any further...).

I wasn't suicidal, but these conservative "therapists" do more harm than good, and there should be laws to hold them accountable.

[tymejumper]

All this bullshit really started with Bush and his shit with pharmacists being able to not prescribe medicines to people they felt ws morally unacceptable to them. This was a covert attempt to regualte and control womens reproductive choices as the meds people refused to prescribe using this law were the morning after pill, or birth control pills. Interestingly enough, there were NO refusals to fill a script for Cialis, or Levitra or Viagra.

This is simply another attempt to control people, only this time it is gays. People were ok when it was 'saving unborn babies lives' and they apparently didn't realize, as many women said, that this law was a slippery slope and would lead to other laws reguarding the exact thing we are seeing now.

We have let the religious right force their beliefs on us reguarding abortion, so now they think that since that went through, so will this. They have strengthed their platform and think they will win. It is no surprise to me what so ever. I did state to my mom and wife that this would be next, it only took 5 years to prove me right.

In reguards to this whole mess, I will stand by my original statement. If you are a medical professional then you have no right withholding your services from some people. If your morals might interfere with your job, it is your responsibilty to think of this impact before you take this job. That means if you want to be a doctor or therapist(like me) you need to realize that you will need to make sure that you are ok providing services to all people no matter what. If you can not in good concience do this, you need to find another career.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

If you are a medical professional then you have no right withholding your services from some people. If your morals might interfere with your job, it is your responsibility to think of this impact before you take this job. That means if you want to be a doctor or therapist(like me) you need to realize that you will need to make sure that you are ok providing services to all people no matter what. If you can not in good conscience do this, you need to find another career.

Very well stated IMO =)

[BruceChris]

I find that I cannot, in good conscience, render any professional services to any members of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.

Bruce Chris