Well, the California statute applies only to sexual orientation change efforts for patients under the age of 18, and applies only to actual efforts to change sexual orientation, on the theory that there's pretty solid evidence that such efforts are likely to be unhelpful or even harmful. See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172 . (Whether there is enough such evidence is now being debated in court; one judge has temporarily enjoined the law, while another has upheld it.)
I'm not sure how that supports the constitutionality of a ban on simply asking questions -- questions that might well lead to perfectly reasonable advice, though they might also lead to unsound advice -- of adult patients. Eugene ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Heath [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: California doctor's boundaries California prohibits doctors from treating homosexuality as a mental illness, even if the "treatment" consists of speech. There are accredited therapists in California who cannot address patients' homosexuality as they think appropriate, because the state deems it ideology and not medicine. So the state saw a problem with doctors imposing ideological values in the name of medicine, and limited doctor's speech to prevent that. The AMA was on the other side of the fence in that argument. But how is it different in First Am terms? _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
