I Underwent "Conversion Therapy" as a Child. As a Psychiatrist, I Know How Professionally Derelict It Is.

"Conversion therapy has nothing to do with treating a patient, but rather with using the authority of therapy to target vulnerable people and persuade them to undergo a practice built on the false promise that their identity can be changed—an intervention that medicine has shown to be ineffective at best and deeply harmful at worst."

"This framing obscures the power imbalance between children seeking care and adults licensed to treat them. It's also the faulty logic at the center of this case. Holders of this viewpoint argue that regulating therapy risks governmental overreach into private belief and expression. That concern deserves consideration—until it collides with the reality of how licensed treatment actually functions."

Chiles v. Salazar examines whether states can prohibit licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy—treatments claiming to change sexual orientation or gender identity. While framed as a speech issue, the case fundamentally concerns professional standards and protecting vulnerable children. Conversion therapy lacks medical validity and causes documented harm. The defense argues regulation infringes on therapist-patient speech, but this ignores the inherent power imbalance between licensed professionals and minors seeking care. Professional conduct regulation, distinct from restricting personal belief, remains within state authority. Medical consensus confirms conversion therapy is ineffective and dangerous, making regulatory prohibition appropriate for protecting public health.

Read at Slate Magazine