Should therapists take sides?

[4gold]

I ran across this article where a man with same-sex attractions struggles to find the therapy he wanted from either secular or religious sources. The secular therapists want him to embrace his homosexuality, something he doesn't want to do. The church couldn't give him the resources he needed for the therapist he wanted.

Should therapists take sides when counseling same-sex attractions? Or should the therapy be patient-driven?

Does the APA have an official stance on this?

[Vanguard]

Should therapists take sides when counseling same-sex attractions? Or should the therapy be patient-driven?

The only thing a therapist should not do is push an agenda that has not been openly communicated and explored. If I had an issue with counseling someone who wanted to further legitimize his homosexuality but I did not communicate this I would be violating the ethical standards of my profession.

Personally, I am not comfortable "helping" someone feel better about their homosexuality. When I was working on my degree I landed an internship opportunity that had me working in the gay district of San Diego (Hillcrest). I was referred a gay man who, among other things, struggled with the legitimization of his homosexuality (i.e., he wanted to find that legitimacy). I had a difficult time working with him and would probably not accept such an assignment now. Ironically, our experience in therapy together was the most profound of any referral I had received in the 1-2 yrs. I was there!

Does the APA have an official stance on this?

I believe the APA and other associations would not expect a therapist to provide services to a population that the therapist is uncomfortable working with.

[s0ren]

What is disturbing to me in this article is how they refer to homosexuality in such an Augustinian sense...as a disease.

Should therapists take sides when counseling same-sex attractions? Or should the therapy be patient-driven?

Therapists should never take sides at least in the objective sense in which we are speaking now. The therapeutic relationship should also never be driven by one party, although certain aspects of it will be driven by one or the other at different times, the relationship should be mutual and empathetic. The focus should steer clear of the morality issue of homosexuality and focus on the betterment of the client and the emergence of the authentic self whether or not he or she chooses to be 'straight' or 'gay' in the end.

[Fallibleone]

Should therapists take sides when counseling same-sex attractions? Or should the therapy be patient-driven?

My opinion, influenced by training in client/person-centred counselling, is that the therapist should in no way take sides, offer opinions or assume an 'authoritarian' or 'expert' role. Unsurprisingly, in an approach called 'person-centred', the client should decide where the sessions go, enabled by the therapist's offering of respect, empathy and genuineness which ideally leads to mutual trust and ultimately self-actualisation for the client.

The secular therapists want him to embrace his homosexuality, something he doesn't want to do.

I believe that the therapist's wants should not even enter into the equation. The client should certainly never be forced in a direction which they do not want to take.

Of course things may be different across the pond, but the UK's ethical framework, the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, has a section entitled Autonomy. In this section, it is stated that:

'The principle of autonomy opposes the manipulation of clients against their will, even for beneficial social ends.'