Of course a treatment method has to be proved effective: why otherwise would anyone use it? This certainly applies to mental health: the careful assessment of the value of behaviour therapy in depression, for example, established its value, and a change of policy by the UK government. I don't know if this occurred in the USA, with its dramatically different system of health care to European countries. I'm astonished that you dismiss 'reparative therapy'. How else does one treat diabetes, or severe heart disease; and if we knew the cause of a mental illness, then we'd certainly attempt to repair it. If a child is unsure of its gender identity, then a course of action that might (or might not) bolster that identity might, in some cases, greatly help that child. What matters in the effectiveness of an intervention, however well-meaning. I'm sorry, but if you havn't assessed your therapeutic approach objectively, you don't know whether you are doing any good. I want to hear a more reasoned objection to Zucker's methods, not simply that they don't fit someone's beliefs or political position.

More Posts