In 2009, Julea Ward, a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University, was in her school-assigned practicum when she was assigned a same-sex couple for treatment. She went to her supervisor and said she could not provide treatment to the couple, citing a conflict with her religious beliefs. The couple ultimately was assigned to a different counselor at the same agency, who did not have the same conflict. Ward thought she had handled the issue appropriately, as the clients received the treatment they had sought and she was not put in a position of needing to hide or compromise her beliefs. She understood the issue to have been successfully resolved.
The mental health professions have long recognized that with our positions and our expertise comes a great deal of responsibility. In exchange for our professional status and the trust we are given to work with vulnerable people in private, we agree to act not just on behalf of our clients, but also on behalf of the larger communities who grant us that very trust. This means maintaining awareness of the laws and policies that impact our clients and communities, and working to change those policies that are not in the community’s best interest.
While each professional organization phrases this obligation differently, they agree that it is part of being a counselor or therapist. Simply put, you are expected to use your specialized knowledge and training to benefit the larger community. It is part of holding the title of a mental health professional.
Her religious discrimination suit is returned to a federal jury. Meanwhile, a proposed law in Michigan would allow students to refuse to treat any client they chose, out of any genuine religious or moral belief.
Julea Ward has enjoyed two big victories so far this year.
For the first time, she won a court ruling in her case against Eastern Michigan University, which had disciplined her for refusing to provide counseling services to a gay client as part of her graduate practicum training. Just weeks later, legislation bearing her name moved forward in the Michigan legislature despite protests from universities and professional associations that the Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act would make it harder to effectively train mental health professionals.
In the court case, Ward’s victory was limited but it does keep her case alive. While not making a determination of the merits of the case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ward should have the opportunity to argue that her religious beliefs were used against her, according to the Associated Press. The case will be returned to a Detroit-based federal jury.
In the Michigan legislature, the House Education Committee advanced HB5040, the bill bearing Ward’s name. According to the Holland Sentinel, the bill would “prohibit religious discrimination against students who are studying counseling, social work, and psychology.” That description seems a bit narrower to me than the bill itself, which goes beyond just prohibiting discrimination: it actually prohibits universities from any disciplinary actions against students who refuse to treat clients based on “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.”
You can keep up with the bill’s progress here: HB5040.
Counselors and therapists with strong religious beliefs sometimes refuse to treat gay and lesbian clients. Some even refuse to offer referrals. Can they do that?
So-called “conscience clauses” are common in health care. They allow professionals to refuse to provide a service within their scope when that service would conflict with the professional’s moral or religious values. In reproductive health, for example, this allows gynecologists to refuse to perform abortions, and allows pharmacists to refuse to distribute birth control, if they find these objectionable.
Such provisions are controversial. The Obama administration has moved to (mostly) end them in federally-funded facilities, and there have been several instances where patients have been harmed — and then filed lawsuits — over treatment refusals based on conscience clauses.
The debate is now coming to mental health, as a result of religious therapists and students taking a stand against treating gay and lesbian clients. These cases point to an interesting contradiction in professional ethical codes:
Mental health professionals do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Mental health professionals do not treat clients outside of their scope of competence.
Though the specific wording varies, versions of those statements can be found in the ethical codes of every major mental health association. When a religious therapist, whose beliefs suggest that homosexuality is immoral[*], is asked to treat a gay or lesbian client (or couple), what should the therapist do?
Offering treatment would abide by the non-discrimination sections of professional ethical codes, but could lead to ineffective — or even harmful — treatment. Religious therapists who, perhaps by their own choosing, lack the training and experience to work effectively with gay and lesbian clients then should not ethically be treating those clients. On the other hand, refusing to treat a client based on the client’s sexual orientation seems to be quite clearly discriminatory.
On issues like this where different parts of a code of ethics conflict, the ethical codes generally do not indicate which standards should take precedence over others. (They also do not allow exceptions based on the therapist’s religious beliefs.) The NASW Code even includes a clear statement that it does not prescribe such an ethical hierarchy, as ethical decision-making is centered around process more than outcome. So no one really knows whether it is ethical for a therapist to refuse to treat clients in same-sex relationships.
Again, allowing a health care provider to refuse to treat clients based on the provider’s religious beliefs is common in other fields (Pharmacy | Medicine), but it comes with an important caveat: The provider usually must give the patient a referral to another provider who would offer the treatment in question. In theory, that should resolve the issue; patients get the services they need while providers maintain their religious convictions. In practice, it only works if that other provider is close at hand. Patients refused services based on religious “conscience clauses” in rural areas, as well as those needing to be treated immediately for the treatment to be effective, are left without options when their provider refuses to treat them for religious reasons — which is precisely why many states put exceptions in their “conscience referral” legislation or simply do not allow such referrals.
Since the Catholic Church teaches that sexual relations are meant for one man and one woman in the context of marriage, if a same-sex couple requests therapy to support, validate or enhance their sexual relationship or something akin to marital therapy, it would be inappropriate to provide that specific, narrow service or make a referral for it, as referring for something considered inappropriate or immoral would itself be inappropriate and immoral because of the element of cooperation.
That strikes me as blatantly discriminatory and harmful to those in need of treatment. It also is theologically consistent.
This is the debate I wish had taken place in CAMFT’s rightly-maligned (and eventually disowned) same-sex-marriage issue of The Therapist. I think there is a legitimate concern on both sides. Religious therapists have an ethical obligation not to refuse treatment based on a client’s sexual orientation. But how can that treatment possibly in the client’s best interests when the therapist’s religion precludes them from in any way supporting the client’s romantic relationship? It seems unlikely. Is there a workable middle ground?
I do not pretend to have the answer here, though I am optimistic such an answer exists. I wish all clients, regardless of sexuality, could receive competent and accepting treatment anywhere they seek it. I also do not want any of the talented religious therapists I know to feel like they need to betray their religious beliefs to work as mental health professionals. I just wish there were a place for honest, genuine, respectful debate on this issue that could land on some ethics code language on which both sides could agree. Is there a place for that?
* – For clarity’s sake, of course not all religious therapists believe that homosexuality is immoral, or would refuse to treat gay or lesbian clients. I personally know many strongly religious therapists who see no conflict at all in offering their professional services to clients regardless of sexual orientation.
Angela Kahn, who serves on the board of the Los Angeles chapter of CAMFT, reportedly gave an impassioned presentation to the statewide board in Sedona, systematically dismantling every possible reason for CAMFT’s continued silence on the issue. The board then voted 9-1 to endorse marriage equality.
Pending their permission, I’ll post the full text of the statement here.
I’m elated that CAMFT is be moving in the right direction, finally, on same-sex marriage. I am hopeful that the positive movement and responsiveness CAMFT is showing on same-sex marriage will extend to other areas as well.