There is a video online, starring
a mouse in a cage, with cheese strewn about and a wire attached to the top of
its head. The wire leads out of the screen, presumably to a researcher with
some switch. The power that this man has with the flip of that switch is truly
inspiring.
It is also terrifying.
This switch triggers a light to shine into the brain of the
mouse. Moments before the switch, the critter was wanders around the cage,
maybe sniffing the food, but paying no more attention to it than the rest of
the cage. The wire’s light turns on. The mouse immediately begins devouring the
food in front of itself, wasting no time to find another piece once the first
is gone. And when the light switches off, the mouse goes back to sniffing and
wandering, just as quickly as the frenzy had begun.
The possibilities of neurological intervention in disease as
well as every-day life are frightening, especially when considering how quickly
these interventions can act on the brain and body. With the right set of neural
stimulation, people may eventually be able to remake their minds, causing one
question the malleability of a personal and seemingly static facet of one’s
life: their identity. One such identity that is usually thought of as constant
is sexual identity, and an interesting question immediately springs to mind. Should
people be allowed to control their sexuality? Yes. It is their body, their
life, and their orientation poses no threat to anyone. However: should people
be allowed to undergo an operation to reverse homosexuality? I admit, it is
hard to imagine what society will be like once we figure out how such a
neurological alteration can be performed. However, there is one practice that
has been in use and is still in use that provides an interesting context for
this discussion: Conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy (i.e. reparative therapy) is a
“treatment” aimed at curing people of their homosexual ways. Some techniques
of conversion therapy include coupling a homoerotic stimuli with an
aversive one, like an electric
shock or nausea-inducing drugs. These risks are especially prevalent in minors,
who usually do not undergo the therapy by choice, but by the harsh force of
their parents. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) strongly maintains
that homosexuality and bisexuality are not diseases and are not in need of therapy. Furthermore,
they recognize that there is no rigorous scientific evidence supporting the
claimed effects of reparative therapy, and that it is potentially dangerous. Much of this research was considered when California passed a law banning
reparative therapy on people under the age of 18, where they concluded that “the potential risks of reparative therapy are great,
including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.” However, despite
the body of evidence and affirmation from the APA that this rehabilitation
should not be practiced, New Jersey is only one other state that has banned the
“cure”.
Figure 1. Conversion
therapy for minors is only banned in two states: California and New Jersey.
Outlawing conversion therapy may eventually become
common-place in state law, just as legalizing same sex marriage has been
realized or is gaining traction in many states. These changes have arisen or
will arise due to shift in public opinion towards homosexuality, and it will
continue to shift as people are made aware of the harmful effects of conversion
therapy.
However, the abuse of conversion therapy may not be an issue
in the future if this neurological intervention becomes a reality. A bigot from
the 50’s (2050’s) will say, “Hey, with this combination of brain stimulation,
we can inhibit all homosexual desires, and we can do it without harming the
person!” The harm, however, does not solely lie behind the direct mental and
physical damage caused.
Even if we assume that this hypothetical cure did not have
any immediate bad side effects, one still must consider the indirect effects of making his operation
available to the public. One such effect is coercion. This operation is not a
problem for the people who choose to undergo the surgery via their own agency.
The issue arises when people are pressured by others in the community to have
the surgery. Possibly in addition to the coercion by the community, one might
be forced by their parents to have the change made, just like the parents who
made their children go through conversion therapy. When teens are considering the
terrifying idea of coming out to their parents, they might be less likely to do
it if they know that their parents will force them to undergo the operation.
With the current politics, as can be seen in Figure 1,
most states would feel very little
motivation in passing legislation to ban this “treatment”.
Dr. Alice
Dreger, from Northwestern University Medical School, wrote an
article about the possibility
of being able to decide a baby’s sexual orientation while it was still in the
womb. She noted that “it seems hard to believe
that in practice it won’t lead to support of the idea that one
ought to try not to have a gay child”. In the more homophobic communities in
the United States, it would become the parents’ fault for not electing to undergo the treatment. This sexual
identity, which seems determined from birth, is now subject to the parents’
choice. The same issue arises for people who have the option to undergo the
operation themselves. Unfortunately, it will be subject to the influence of the
community, which may or may not want what the individual does.
By now, we can revisit the question that was posed earlier: should an
operation to inhibit ones homosexuality be allowed to the public? No.
The possibility of force or coercion in today’s society poses too great of a
threat to homosexual people in a homophobic environment. The medical need for
such an operation is not present because homosexuality is not a disease. The
operation, however, would mostly be used to reverse homosexuality, propagating
the idea that it should be reversed.
