The ethics of sexual reorientation: what should clinicians and researchers do?

Abstract

Technological measures meant to change sexual orientation are, we have argued elsewhere, deeply alarming, even and indeed especially if they are safe and effective. Here we point out that this in part because they produce a distinctive kind of 'clinical collective action problem', a sort of dilemma for individual clinicians and researchers: a treatment which evidently relieves the suffering of particular patients, but in the process contributes to a practice that substantially worsens the conditions that produce this suffering in the first place. We argue that the role obligations of clinicians to relieve the suffering of their patients put them in a poor position to solve this problem, though they can take measures to avoid complicity in the harms that would result from widespread use of individually safe and effective reorientation biotechnology. But in the end the medical community as a whole still seems obligated to provide these measures, if they become technologically feasible. Medical researchers are in a better position to prevent the harms that would result if reorientation techniques were safe, effective and widely available. We argue that the harms attendant on the development of safe and effective re-orientation techniques give researchers reason to avoid 'applied' research aimed at developing these techniques, and to be careful in the conduct of basic orientation research which might be applied in this way.

Community attitudes on genetic research of gender identity, sexual orientation, and mental health

“…With this transition comes an urgent need to understand the perspectives and concerns of both the general public and the groups being studied. This is particularly true in the case of sexual orientation [ 14 ], gender identity, and their potential connections to aspects of mental health, which have received increasing attention from genetic researchers in recent years [ 15 – 17 ]. While genetics cannot fully explain these sensitive and often stigmatized [ 18 ] aspects of individual identity, a greater understanding of the genetic and biological contributions to these phenomena may reduce public stigma while also advancing scientific understanding of the complex relationships between sex, gender, and risk for neuropsychiatric conditions.…”

Expanding the Romantic Circle

“… 5 The existing literature has focused on future technologies that would target sexual orientation. See Aas and Delmas ( 2016 ) on why scientific research into these technologies should be banned, and Southan ( 2019 ) for a more optimistic view. It should be noted that these types of technologies are importantly different from AET, since AET aims to expand one’s physical attractions generally, not target sexual orientation specifically.…”