Lesley Pilkington, a psychotherapist who was found guilty of ‘professional malpractice’ for attempting ‘conversion therapy’ (a bogus treatment which is supposed to make gay people become heterosexual) has lost her appeal against the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP). Mrs Pilkington was found guilty of malpractice last year after trying to convert a gay man to heterosexuality. The BACP described her work as ‘negligent’, ‘dogmatic’ and ‘unprofessional’.
“Was it, the BACP panel asked, her belief that homosexuality was wrong, sinful or unnatural? “Oh yes,” she replied. “There’s no question about that . . . but there’s a way out.”
“Mrs Pilkington had allowed her personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation to affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial,” concluded the BACP’s investigation report.
Retrain and report, or you’re struck off
She was ordered to complete extensive training and professional development. If she does not file a report in six to 12 months, satisfying the board that she has complied, she will have her BACP membership fully revoked: she will be struck off.
But anyone can offer ‘gay cures’
But no-one can stop her, or anyone else, from offering ‘gay cures’. There’s no government registration, regulation, or minimum standard, and anyone can call themselves a “counselor” or a “psychotherapist”. The BACP may have barred her, but she could carry on. She just can’t claim to be a member of BACP.
Prayers for conversion and suggesting childhood abuse were all part of ‘conversion therapy’
Patrick Strudwick, an award winning journalist who was investigating therapists who claim to be able to ‘treat’ homosexuality, made a formal complaint. Mr Strudwick, who is gay, received two counseling sessions from Mrs Pilkington in 2009, in which she used the techniques of ‘conversion therapy’ (also known as ‘reparative therapy’) in an attempt to turn him heterosexual. The treatment, which also involved praying to God to make Mr. Strudwick straight, of course, failed.
Suggesting sexual abuse as a child
Mrs Pilkington also suggested that he had been sexually abused as a child which, she believes, led to his homosexuality .
“There was no sexual abuse?” she pressed. “No.” “I think there is something there . . . you’ve allowed things to be done to you.” She then prayed: “Father, we give you permission to bring to the surface some of the things that have happened over the years.” He asked who could have committed this abuse – a member of his family? “Yes, very likely,” she replied.
Unanimous rejection of her appeal
The BACP said that
‘the appeal panel is unanimous that Mrs. Pilkington failed to exercise reasonable care and skill and was thus negligent.’
The panel also said it was ‘entirely wrong’ for Mrs Pilkington to suggest that Mr Strudwick had been sexually abused as a child, and that this ‘falls below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent practitioner.’
Suspension and must submit report to show change of practice
The BACP have suspended Mrs Pilkington’s accreditation, and have ordered her to submit a report between 4 and 12 months from now, in which she will have to demonstrate that she has changed her practice to meet the BACP’s requirements.
Mr Strudwick said that
‘I am delighted that the BACP has upheld their original decision. Mrs Pilkington’s therapeutic practices have been held up to scrutiny and found to be fundamentally flawed.’ He also said that ‘this case sets a vital precedent. I urge anyone involved in this harmful practice to take note of this case and desist. Love needs no cure.’
Pavan Dhaliwal, the British Humanist Association’s Head of Public Affairs, commented,
‘treatments which attempt to “cure” homosexuality are morally objectionable because they carry the implication that homosexuality is a disease. They also lack any foundation in scientific fact, having been condemned by the UK Council for Psychotherapy, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as in the recent judgement by the BACP. These so-called treatments can also be extremely harmful, especially when they are applied to vulnerable individuals.’
Dr Robert Spitzer apologises for backing “gay cure therapy”
Claims to be able to ‘cure’ homosexuality now lie completely discredited. Dr Robert Spitzer in the US was highly influential in modern psychiatry, and won notoriety when he claimed his 2001 study proved that homosexuality could be cured. This study is always quoted by “ex-gay”, “gay cure”, and “pray away the gay” Christian fundamentalists.
But Spitzer recently formally changed his view, and admitted that his study was ‘fatally flawed’. And a couple of weeks ago, the 80 year old who now has Parkinson’s disease, worked to clear his conscience by making a formal apology to the gay community, in the New York Times.
Church of England Bishops and Christian Concern urged to retract support for “gay cures”
The British Humanist Association has called on all who have supported anti-gay ‘conversion therapies’, such as the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, the former Bishop of Rochester Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, and the lobby group Christian Concern (all of whom supported Lesley Pilkington) to retract their views.
Mrs Pilkington was also supported by the fundamentalist Christian Legal Centre and the evangelical ‘religious liberty’ barrister, Paul Diamond, who has lost most of the Christian cases he has represented. The high court described Diamond as using “extravagant rhetoric” in more than one case. The court also dismissed his written assertions as a “travesty of the reality”.
Christian backing for Mrs Pilkington’s “gay cure”
Christian Concern’s articles on Mrs Pilkington’s case
‘Gay cures’ still on offer
Even if Pilkington is later struck off completely for failing to convince the BACP she has changed her professional practice, she would still be able to carry on practising and offer ‘gay cures’. Anyone can claim to be a therapist in Britain because there is no state regulation: “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected job titles. The BACP is a self-regulating, independent body. No one has to be a member. Thus you can’t stop a bad therapist seeing clients, any more than you can stop a fortune-teller from reading tea leaves or tarot cards.
Patrick Strudwick is continuing his campaign. He has also complained about a Belfast psychiatrist, Dr Paul Miller. Miller claims to have “resolved” his own conflicted sexuality and is now married with children. Miller told Strudwick that homosexuality “represents a pathology”. Strudwick complained to the General Medical Council, (because the Royal College of Psychiatrists can’t discipline its members), because their Good Psychiatric Practice manual says
“A psychiatrist must provide care that does not discriminate and is sensitive to issues of sexual orientation.”
His complaint was rejected, but he has appealed.
More information
Patrick Strudwick’s report in the Independent
Patrick Strudwick’s report in the Guardian, written after Lesley Pilkington was found guilty of professional malpractice
British Humanist Association’s first article on the complaint against Mrs Pilkington
British Humanist Association’s report on the rejection of her appeal
‘Ex-gay’ watch blog - the Pilkington case with video interview on Channel 4 News
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
The UK Council for Psychotherapy condemns ‘reparative therapy’ and welcomes ban on homophobic advert
Doctors at the British Medical Association declare that gay conversion therapies are harmful
The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement on sexual orientation [pdf]
Apology to gay community for ‘gay cures’, from Dr Robert Spitzer in New York Times
Guardian report on Dr Robert Spitzer’s retraction of his previous claim that ‘reparative therapy’ can ‘cure’ homosexuality
Related articles
Mrs Pilkington’s case raises a whole host of important, related issues, including allegations of discrimination against Christians, the distinction between Christian counselling and legitimate psychotherapy, the conflicting claims to credibility on the one hand of the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, which say that homosexuality is not a mental health problem and should not be subjected to attempts at a “cure” - and NARTH, which says it is, and should be. Then there’s the important problem of responding to the deeply felt need by some men who are attracted to men, for a change in orientation, in the hopes of reducing the conflicts they experience with social norms and religious expectations.
I am at present attempting to pull together all these issues in a post of my own, but a few points need to be stressed, in even the most superficial treatment of the subject.
* the position of the WHO and APA, that orientation cannot and should not be changed, is the consensus view of the mental health professionals.
* the position of NARTH and the ex-gay movements, depend heavily for evidence on the Spitzer study - which Spitzer himself has retracted as methodologically unsound.
* numerous ex-gay leaders have ended by acknowledging that the movement is built on a myth, admitting in different words, that there is no such thing as an “ex - gay”.
* the overwhelming balance of probability is that orientation cannot be changed - but behaviour can be,
How best to respond to Catholics and other Christians who recognize their orientation, but believe that celibacy is the only option compatible with their religious convictions, is an important and complex issue that deserves to be considered carefully, and respectfully.
Looking forward to reading your planned post on the broader issues.
I’ve not much sympathy with Mrs Pilkington because she cloaked herself with the professional mantle of a BACP endorsement which sets certain norms for working with vulnerable people, yet allowed her personal religious convictions to direct how she judged and worked with Patrick Strudwick, and especially because she specifically suggested he had been sexually abused as a child by someone in his family, and it was abuse which made him gay.
There’s a regular theme of complaints of religious discrimination where this intersects with LGBT sexuality, but there is no absolute right of freedom of religion where this runs up against other equality rights, including protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality. This is inevitably a contested area, with both faith and sexuality advocates equally determined to press their case. Faith groups neglect to promote, say the prohibition on heterosexual divorce, with the same vigor as policing LGBT sexuality. It is ordinary, usually untrained people, who make the decisions where complaints arise, and inevitably some poor judgements are made. Banning the wearing of crosses is, I feel, an example of leaning too far to protect the sensitivities of LGBT agnostics and atheists.
I’m not sure what I think about helping someone to be celibate to comply with her/his faith’s instruction. Is celibacy a natural state for humans? I doubt it. There’s an awful lot of evidence of the ways human sexuality finds ways to leak out in the lives of many priests attempting to keep their promise to the bishop of celibacy.
My post is about half done, and should be completed tomorrow or Wednesday. I assure you that I too have little sympathy with Mrs Pilkington. Whatever she is offering, it cannot be described as “therapy”, which refers to healing. To call her activities “therapy” is gross misrepresentation: my aim is
just to show how this is so.
Voluntary celibacy is a more complex matter. I reject the idea that celibacy is the only valid option for LGBT Catholics, and object to attempts by the nominally celibate oligarchs to impose their own unnatural lifestyle on the rest of us. But we have to recognize that for some people, it may be the only way that they can reconcile their faith and their orientation. It’s not my choice, and a dangerous one when externally imposed - but where it is freely chosen, I think we should respect those who take that path, just as I would like others to respect us who have chosen in conscience to operate outside of Vatican orthodoxy.
”I think we should respect those who take that path, just as I would like others to respect us who have chosen in conscience to operate outside of Vatican orthodoxy.”
Again, thank you so so much. THis attitude is precisely why your blog is a beacon of light for struggling lgbtq’s who love but are struggling with their religion (most of the time at least, when peripheral political commentary is avoided).
Far too few LGBTQ/liberals support true diversity - they like what I call ‘superficial diversity’, which is the “we have a black person, an asian person, a gay person, a nominal Catholic, and cultural jew, and a western-buddhist, therefore we are diverse”. That LOOKS like diversity, but it is only superficial if everyone has the same general 21st century liberal outlook. A staunch muslim, a conservative catholic, and a diehard athiest working together is what REAL, substantive, diversity looks like. I always get annoyed when progressives promote the ‘option’ of non-celibacy but then look down on or ridicule celibacy itself. Saying that “it isnt for everyone” necessarily means that it IS for some people, and they should be treated the exact same as those who are not celibate.
On your last paragraph: this is true, but not all of that ‘evidence’ is specifically from people ‘not being able’ to be celibate. There is a very significant and portion of clergy today who have absolutely no intention of keeping their vows in this regard. Such cases, and there are many, do not reflect poorly on ‘celibacy’, they merely reflect an attitude that has always been existent among a minority of clergy yet is far more prevalent in the post-1960s because of modern culture’s over-emphasis on the goodness of sex and ridicule of celibacy. This was a major theme in the protestant revolution, which led to the forced closure of monasteries and forcing monks and nuns to marry even against their will because it was ‘good’ and ‘celibacy was stupid’ and ‘not biblically mandated’. The persistent wariness of celibacy that you have is very Protestant/Jewish/Islamic, whereas the Catholic Church’s view on celibacy is distinctly correlative to Buddhism (which, oddly enough, the Catholic and Buddhist cosmologies are actually the only two that I feel actually grasp at the ‘real nature’ of the universe/have the most ‘authentic’ spirituality out of all of the major religions alive today). This is to be expected, as you live in a predominately protestant country/culture - not unlike america, only the sectarian protestantism of the US is FAR more anti-celibacy than the protestantism that characterizes the Anglican/episcopal church (which explains why you are still tolerant of celibacy for those who ‘want it’, rather than actively anti-celibacy like many americans are.
I do wonder whether your contention that a ‘very significant’ proportion of clergy in the post-1960s never intended to keep to their promise of celibacy, is actually true.
Do you have evidence of the proportion of clergy that crossed their fingers to nullify their promise to their bishop at ordination?
I reflect that a great many clergy in the past, including Popes, Cardinals and others, produced a remarkable number of children, and not a few had same sex lovers.
Thank you Mr. Weldon for recognizing the nuances and complexities of issues such as this. Especially the plight of those who are the subjects of such therapies, and I am not talking about the victims of therapy based abuse. The discussions and hoopla over ‘reparative therapy’ is always focused on the ‘un-scientific’ and ‘unprofessional basis’ and ‘christianity’ of these therapies, as well as the abuse of youths who are forced into these treatments. But the truth is that those are secondary issues (especially the ‘abuse’ part because youths being forced into such treatments is actually a fairly uncommon/small percentage of the people who go through these ‘treatments’ (though the number has risen in the past few years as those with LGBT orientations are attaching their self-worth and identity to being “gay” at much younger ages that they used to).
All of the discussion on this topic misses the single largest chunk of the issue, which is that the vast majority of people who attend these treatments are adults (primarily men) who attend on their own free-will and penny because they truly and honestly do not want to be gay. those who suffer from USSA (unwanted-same-sex-attraction) are more or less completely ignored even though they are the silent majority that is driving the existence of such programs. Having gone through this myself, I know first hand that the desire to be something that you cannot be with all of your heart and soul is probably the single largest factor that guarantees someone falling into despair. About 2.5 years ago I finally snapped under the struggle and decided that I hated God more than Satan for making me/allowing me to become gay and then refusing to help me after all of the devotion and self-sacrifice I had done; I also lost the will to live.
It really warmed my heart to see that someone else besides me has recognized the silent group of these people and the great need for compassion and delicacy towards those who suffer from not wanting to be gay. I can tell you that a gay man who tells another lgbtq person that they do not want to be gay is often met with the same type of ridicule and bewilderment that those who embrace their sexuality get from anti-gay groups - being treated with dismissal or even anger at their struggle by other LGBTQs only compounds the suffering and problems. THis is an issue that the LGBTQ community needs to start recognizing and treating these people with the same sensativity and respect that they demand for themselves.
It was not being made fun of and ostracized and rejected by most of my peers for most of my life for being easily suspected of being gay that made me no longer want to live, it was not my personal embarrassment at finding out that I used to play with dolls and preferred the pink power ranger when I was little or when I would accidentally let slip an effeminate gesture in front of other people, it was not feeling like a disappointment to my macho/athlete/go-get-em businessman father, and it was not the Church’s teaching against the morality of homosexual lifestyles nor its teaching that the homosexual orientation was disordered that made me no longer want to live. It was despair over not being able to be straight, of being doomed to suffer from this condition that I desired to be free of more than I desired anything else in my entire life. It was only after I realized that I could never change my orientation, and that God refused to answer my most ernest pleas, did I loose the will to live. The realization of having no way out is the definition of despair, as it signifies the extinguishment of hope, which is why I rejected God and desired to kill myself. (It is no wonder that Aquinas called despair the unforgivable sin - it is not unforgivable because god wont forgive it, it is unforgivable because it is the one way that you can cut yourself off from God without there being an actual transgression for him to forgive; despair is the severing of the “comm. line” between you and God, because it is nothing less than the destruction of hope and faith (trust), which is the core of Christianity.)
Thank you, AD, for so openly sharing your own experience. Awareness of your position has been an important factor in my own desire to dig into the complexity, rather than simply dismiss all attempts at conversion as ridiculous, or worse. I am convinced that the desire to change orientation is a lost cause, and so its pursuit is misguided - but recognizing that, says nothing about alternative ways to deal with the desire.
No Mr. Weldon, you are the one who deserves thanks. Thank you for your sensitivity, compassion, and wisdom in seeing that issues are more complex than the way they are presented in the media. Your ability to read/hear something and realize that your own understanding may not be fully complete, and the fact that you leave your established views and interpretations open to adjustments as new information comes in (rather than being absolutely certain that you know it all), makes you a very special person in this segment of the blogosphere. I still go back and forth over whether or not supporting the ‘gay agenda/lifestyle’ is really what is best in the long run, but when I am struggling most I always remind myself that there is no way that someone like you could not be at least partially guided by God in your work - which gives renewed confidence in my support for at least the basics of the LGBTQ cause in both the church and society - it was actually people like you, dustin lance black, and a VERY small selection of other lgbts that made me realize that being ‘gay’ did not have to mean being all of the things that I distain about the attitude and culture of the majority of gay people that I have ever been familiar with. Thank YOU Mr. Weldon, for all you have done; you are truly a gift from God in this trying period for gays and religion.