Central California Psychiatric Society: Fill & Download for Free

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

A mental health diagnosis alone does not legally prevent you from owning a gun according to state or federal law.[1]Registering an emotional support animal does not prevent gun ownership according to state or federal law.Federal Law -According to federal law you are prevented from purchasing a firearm if you -Have been involuntarily committed to a mental institutionHave been adjudicated as a mental defective.Basically, if you’ve been involuntary committed to a psychiatric hospital or a judicial body has legally found you to be a danger to yourself or others, or determined that you lack the mental ability to manage your own affairs (take care of yourself and function in normal society) you’re federally prohibited from owning a firearm.State Laws -Several states have additional restrictions which include one or more of the following -Individuals voluntarily committed to a mental institution.Individuals involuntarily committed to outpatient mental health treatment.Individuals assigned a legal guardian to manage their personal affairs.Individuals found insane in criminal cases.Individuals found incompetent to stand trial.The last two technically fall under the adjudicated as a mental defective under federal law but some states have specific verbiage identifying these categories.Reporting of mental health records -Federal and State laws regarding the purchase of firearms and ammunition are enforced by requiring mandatory background checks before the sale of a firearm. Many include a waiting period as well. The background check primarily uses the NICS database to determine eligibility to purchase.Most states have a centralized reporting agency that courts and mental health facilities report mental health records to that then reports those records to NICS and/or other law enforcement agencies that conduct background checks. Many states require additional reporting directly to NICS and/or other law enforcement agency databases. The requirements vary by state, as do the time limits to report.State law requires reporting anyone prohibited by federal or state law from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to mental illness (California, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania).Complete reporting by states of anyone prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to mental illness includes any person:Determined by a court or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others because of a mental disorder or defect.Determined by a court or other lawful authority to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs because of a mental disorder or defect, including any person appointed a guardian on this basis (15 states).Formally committed involuntarily to a mental institution or asylum as an inpatient (Most states report at least some individuals) or outpatient (21 states).Found not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility in a criminal case.Found guilty but insane in a criminal case. Found incompetent to stand trial. Who falls within the categories of individuals prohibited under state law from possessing firearms (California, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas).Who has previously fallen into one of these categories (Texas has reported individuals who became prohibited as far back as September 1, 1989).Licensed psychotherapists (California, Illinois, New York), law enforcement officials and school administrators (Illinois) must report mentally ill individuals who demonstrate violent behavior; these people become prohibited from possessing firearms.Courts must ensure that information is reported to NICS and to an in-state agency (Tennessee and Washington), which is also charged with ensuring reporting to NICS (Connecticut, Illinois).Law enforcement agencies other than NICS that conduct firearm purchaser background checks or issue firearm purchaser licenses have access to any databases containing relevant mental health records (California, Colorado, Illinois).Mental health facilities must report individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons, if such individuals are not reported by courts (California, Delaware, Illinois).Mental health records are reported immediately upon an adjudication or commitment that renders a person prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm (Arkansas, California, Michigan).Firearms currently in your possession (search and seizure) -The restrictions outlined above prohibiting firearm possession are enforced at the time of purchase from a licensed dealer. The reporting of mental health records to state or federal agencies does not automatically trigger law enforcement to initiate search and seizure of currently owned firearms and ammunition.For example, if you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, evaluated, treated and released after you have been found not to be a danger to yourself or others, officers are not going to follow you home to search for and confiscate any firearms in your possession.There are several laws which specifically prohibit your right to have a firearm or ammunition in your possession. These laws are enforced on an individual basis based on applicable federal, state and local laws and can lead to the removal of any firearms currently in your possession by law enforcement.For example, if you are served with a protection order and have registered firearms, you may be required to turn them over to law enforcement. Additionally, if you are reported to the police for violent behavior you may be subject to the search and seizure of any firearms currently in your possession. It is important to note that these examples are completely unrelated to mental disorder diagnosis or mental health record reporting and instead are related to demonstrated/reported violent behavior even though documented history of mental illness may be submitted as evidence of your current mental state.Correlations between violence and mental health -In May of 2015 an epidemiological study entitled, “Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy”[2] was conducted to explore the impact of mental health in comparison to other factors as a predictor of gun violence and to guide policy creation and reform.The scope and depth of data analyzed and evaluated in the study put to rest the arguments of both extreme viewpoints on the issue of gun violence and mental illness. There is a statistically significant increase in violent behavior in individuals with mental illness vs the general population. However, this variance is statistically equivalent to the increased probability of violence in low income and substance abuse populations. This correlates with the increased portion of these populations containing mentally ill individuals vs other demographics.In individuals with only mental illness and no substance abuse there was no statistical significance in violent behaviors compared to others in their same demographic. They also found that the triggers for extreme violent behaviors were consistent and predictable regardless of mental illness.So basically, in the same population group, mental illness is not a reliable predictor of violent behavior.The correlation between suicide and mental illness -Here is where, on the surface, the statistics proved the point of those championing “Red Flag Laws,” or the beginning of the end of your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights. That’s if we can derail the theft of our civil liberties before we forfeit the bill of rights entirely.However, if you analyze the historical data you will find that while mental illness does make suicide more likely. The correlation stems from easy access, lack of mandatory gun safety training and licensing requirements, socioeconomic status, substance abuse and access to mental health care.With every improvement to these areas, suicide rates dropped significantly in individuals both with and without mental illness. Suicide is an impulsive response to a hopeless or overwhelming situation with no other obvious solution. Limit the access to a quick solution, increase access to education, resources and quality healthcare and suicide rates decrease significantly.For example, when states increased the waiting period to purchase a firearm, suicide rates went down. The same way they went down when the quantities of certain prescription and over the counter medicines were limited.When laws requiring gun safety and training requirements for licensing are implemented or strengthened, suicide rates go down. Suicide is almost always an impulse reaction and if you remove the ability to act impulsively you eliminate the majority of the risk.80–90% of people that seek treatment for depression are treated successfully with therapy and/or medication; but only 50% of Americans experiencing an episode of severe depression get treatment. [3]Lack of access to medical care and prevalent social stigma for a completely treatable medical condition is the cause of suicide. Those are problems no amount of gun legislation will solve.What other rights do you lose when diagnosed with a mental illness -Legally none. You lose no rights based solely on a diagnosis of bipolar or any other mental illness. Serious mental illness is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and it is illegal to discriminate against people based solely because they have a disability.If you are identified as a danger to yourself or others and committed to a mental institution involuntarily (or even voluntarily at the recommendation of your doctor) your rights depend largely on the quality of the hospital and the quality of your support system.(I will eventually tell a terrifying story about my experience with my husband and a mental hospital when the right question pops into my feed.)If you are legally, by a court of law, deemed unable to handle your personal affairs then a guardian will be appointed to you by that court. At that point your rights become largely dependent on your guardian as they are now the decision maker for every aspect of your life.A diagnosis of mental illness is the same as any other medical diagnosis. Private and something you manage, not something that defines you.Your choices and behaviors are the things that determine if you retain your legal rights. Do the right thing, stay on the right side of the law, take ownership of your mental health and do what you need to do to be healthy and well. It is harder to navigate life with a mental illness but it’s hard to survive cancer too. Cancer is largely treatable and beatable if diagnosed early, you follow the steps of your medical plan and you fight to be well. Mental illness is exactly the same.Unfortunately, while your life is not legally affected solely by a diagnosis, mental illness is surrounded by misinformation, misunderstanding and serious stigma.There is a lot of judgement and fear surrounding mental illness. You can see physical illness, it makes sense and is largely predictable because its visibility makes it easier to define and study.Mental illness is almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it. The concept that your brain is a liar and actively works against you is terrifying and almost impossible to believe if you don’t have personal experience with it. People are afraid of things they don’t understand.Footnotes[1] Mental Health Reporting | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence[2] Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy[3] Suicide Statistics and Facts – SAVE

Actually today in Canada a landmark decison was handed down about Solitary Confinment.Here is the link the cases in question and the brave people who have taken action.http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/00/2018BCSC0062.htmThe Courts of British ColumbiaPlease remember prison is about money and in the USA , it is one of the largest industries.I changed a law in the Children’s Court in Western Australia, it took four years, and was proclaimed on the exact day my son was sentenced on his 18th birthday to Maximum Prison, he has never ever recovered, raped repeatedly and then sent to solitary confinement. Completely illegal, imho. Think about this, an adolescent brain is not fully developed until they are 25!This article highlights what happens to the human brain in such tortuous, inhumain, and cruel.here is the key expert witness testimony“(a) Dr. Stuart Grassian(i) Qualifications[163] Dr. Grassian is a board certified psychiatrist who was on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School for over 25 years. He published a seminal article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1983 in which he identified a syndrome that he had recognized in a number of inmates he interviewed in solitary confinement in Walpole Prison in Massachusetts. Subsequently he has had extensive experience in evaluating the psychiatric effects of stringent conditions of confinement, given expert evidence in a number of court cases on this issue, and published a further article in 2006 entitled “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement” which describes the extensive body of literature including clinical and experimental literature, regarding the effects of a restriction of environmental and social stimulation, and, more specifically, observations concerning the effects of segregated confinement on inmates. Over the course of his involvement as an expert, Dr. Grassian has interviewed and assessed approximately 400 inmates who were or had been in solitary confinement.(ii) Opinion[164] Dr. Grassian’s opinion, in brief, is that solitary confinement — the confinement of an inmate alone in a cell for all, or nearly all, of the day with minimal environmental stimulation and minimal opportunity for social interaction — can cause severe psychiatric harm. The restriction of environmental stimulation and social isolation associated with solitary confinement are “strikingly toxic” to mental functioning, producing a stuporous condition associated with perceptual and cognitive impairment and affective disturbances. In more severe cases, segregated inmates have developed florid delirium, a confusional psychosis with intense agitation, fearfulness and disorganization. Even inmates who are more psychologically resilient inevitably suffer severe psychological pain as a result of solitary confinement, especially when the confinement is prolonged and/or the individual experiences this confinement as being the product of an arbitrary exercise of power and intimidation. Moreover, the harm caused by solitary confinement may result in prolonged or permanent psychiatric disability, including impairments which may seriously affect the inmate’s capacity to reintegrate into the broader community upon release from prison.[165] When he initially evaluated the 14 Walpole inmates housed in the Special Housing Unit, it was in the context of a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging the conditions in solitary confinement at the maximum-security state penitentiary. Dr. Grassian discovered that the psychiatric symptoms reported to him by the inmates were strikingly consistent:a) hypersensitivity to external stimuli – more than half the inmates reported a progressive inability to tolerate ordinary stimuli;b) perceptual distortions and hallucinations – almost a third of the inmates described hearing voices, often saying frightening things to them;c) panic attacks – well over half the inmates described severe panic attacks;d) difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory – these ranged in severity from loss of memory or difficulty concentrating to acute psychotic, confusional states;e) intensive obsessional thoughts – almost half the inmates reported the emergence of primitive aggressive fantasies of revenge, torture and mutilation of the prison guards. In each case the fantasies were described as entirely unwelcome, frightening and uncontrollable;f) overt paranoia – almost half the inmates reported paranoid and persecutory fears; andg) problems with impulse control – slightly less than half the inmates reported episodes of loss of impulse control with random violence, such as throwing things around, “snap[ping] off the handle over absolutely nothing”, and even impulsive self-mutilation.[166] Dr. Grassian explains that most of these dramatic symptoms are exceedingly rare in psychiatric practice and, where they do exist, are more commonly associated with neurological illnesses such as seizure disorders and brain tumors. Thus, the fact that all of these quite unusual symptoms ran together was strongly suggestive of a clinically distinguishable syndrome of stupor and delirium. Delirium is a syndrome characterized by a decreased level of alertness and electroencephalogram (“EEG”) abnormalities, as well as the same perceptual and cognitive disturbances Dr. Grassian observed in the Walpole inmates. Moreover, delirium is a syndrome which is known to result from the type of conditions, including restricted environmental stimulation, that are characteristic of solitary confinement.[167] Dr. Grassian described how his subsequent research and literature review indicated that it had long been known that severe restriction of environmental and social stimulation had a profoundly deleterious effect on mental functioning. A major body of clinical literature had developed regarding psychiatric disturbances among inmates in 19th century American and German penitentiaries. Concerns about the profound psychiatric effects of solitary confinement continued into the 20th century, both in the medical literature and in the news, especially in the context of prisoners of war.[168] Moreover, the fact that restricted environmental stimulation can cause stupor and delirium was well-known in various medical situations, such as patients in intensive care units, spinal patients immobilized by the need for prolonged traction, and patients with impairment of their sensory apparatus (such as eye-patched or hearing-impaired patients).[169] The literature, as well as Dr. Grassian’s own observations, demonstrated that, deprived of a sufficient level of environmental and social stimulation, individuals soon become incapable of maintaining an adequate state of alertness and attention to the environment. Even a few days of solitary confinement will predictably shift the EEG pattern toward an abnormal pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. Dr. Grassian states that in his own professional experience, he has seen individuals who, after only hours in solitary, have descended into a psychotic delirium and attempted suicide.[170] After even a relatively brief period in a situation of inadequate environmental stimulation, an individual is likely to descend into a mental torpor or “fog,” in which alertness, attention, and concentration all become impaired. In such a state, after a time, the individual becomes increasingly incapable of processing external stimuli, and often becomes “hyperresponsive” to such stimulation. Over time, the absence of stimulation causes whatever stimulation is available to become noxious and irritating. Individuals in such a stupor tend to avoid any stimulation, and withdraw progressively into themselves and their own mental fog.[171] There are substantial differences in the effects of solitary confinement upon different individuals. Those most severely affected are often individuals with evidence of subtle neurological or attention deficit disorder, or with some other vulnerability. These individuals suffer from states of florid psychotic delirium, marked by severe hallucinatory confusion, disorientation, and even incoherence, and by intense agitation and paranoia. These psychotic disturbances often have a dissociative character, and individuals so affected often do not recall events which occurred during the course of the confusional psychosis. Generally, individuals with more stable personalities and greater ability to modulate their emotional expression and behaviour and individuals with stronger cognitive functioning are less severely affected. However, all of these individuals will still experience a degree of stupor, difficulties with thinking and concentration, obsessional thinking, agitation, irritability, and difficulty tolerating external stimuli (especially noxious stimuli).[172] Moreover, although many of the acute symptoms suffered by these inmates are likely to subside upon termination of solitary confinement, many – including some who did not become overtly psychiatrically ill during their confinement in solitary – will likely suffer permanent harm as a result of such confinement. This harm is most commonly manifested by a continued intolerance of social interaction, a handicap which often prevents the inmate from successfully readjusting to the broader social environment of general population in prison and, perhaps more significantly, often severely impairs the inmate’s capacity to reintegrate into the broader community upon release from imprisonment.[173] Many inmates housed in such stringent conditions are extremely fearful of acknowledging the psychological harm or stress they are experiencing as a result of such confinement. This reluctance of inmates in solitary confinement is a response to the perception that such confinement is an overt attempt by authorities to “break them down” psychologically, and in Dr. Grassian’s experience, tends to be more severe when the inmate experiences the stringencies of his or her confinement as being the product of an arbitrary exercise of power, rather than the fair result of an inherently reasonable process.[174] Dr. Grassian explains that these findings received further corroboration in his observations of inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison, a new “supermax” facility in California. In 1991-1992, as part of his participation in Madrid v. Gomez (1995) 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal.), a class-action lawsuit challenging conditions at the prison, he evaluated 49 inmates housed in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) and prepared a lengthy report to the Federal District Court of his findings. Many of the inmates Dr. Grassian evaluated suffered severe psychiatric disturbances while housed in the SHU, either springing up de novo while so incarcerated or representing a recurrence or severe exacerbation of pre-existing illness.[175] Dr. Grassian says that the clinical data at Pelican Bay added corroboration to the conclusion that the severe and prolonged restriction of environmental stimulation in solitary confinement is toxic to brain functioning. The data also demonstrated that the most severe psychiatric illnesses resulting from solitary confinement tended to be suffered by those individuals with pre-existing brain dysfunction.[176] Dr. Grassian expresses the view that while not all individuals will become floridly ill after 15 days of solitary confinement, all or certainly some will suffer greatly as a consequence of experiencing it. In this regard, he describes the 15-day maximum in the Mandela Rules as “generous” given the overwhelming evidence that even within the space of 15 days solitary confinement can cause severe psychiatric harm.(b) Dr. Craig Haney(i) Qualifications[177] Dr. Haney is a Distinguished Professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has both a PhD in psychology and a J.D. degree from Stanford University. His academic specialization is psychology and law. He has published numerous scholarly articles and book chapters on topics in law and psychology including the psychological effects of imprisonment and the nature and consequences of solitary or “supermax”-type confinement. He has lectured and given invited addresses on these topics.[178] Dr. Haney has studied the psychological effects of living and working in real (as opposed to simulated) institutional environments, including juvenile facilities, mainline adult prison and jail settings, and specialized correctional housing units (such as solitary and “supermax”-type confinement). Because his focus is primarily on the psychological and mental health effects of correctional environments, he has studied the ways that mentally ill inmates, especially, are affected by their conditions of confinement and how prison systems address the needs of this vulnerable population. In the course of that work, Dr. Haney has toured and inspected numerous maximum-security state prisons and related facilities across the United States and around the world, including in Canada. Dr. Haney’s research, writing, and testimony have been cited by numerous U.S. Courts including state courts, Federal District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court.[179] Since the 1970s to the present, Dr. Haney has interviewed and assessed over 1,000 segregated inmates.(ii) Opinion[180] In brief compass, it is Dr. Haney’s opinion, based on the existing scientific literature as well as his own long-standing study of the subject, that administrative segregation places all inmates at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide. These risks are intensified when the inmates have pre-existing vulnerabilities, particularly juveniles and the mentally ill, but also inmates with other forms of vulnerability such as cognitive deficits.[181] Dr. Haney says that his conclusions are empirically supported by a robust literature that spans many decades and has been generated by scholars and researchers in different countries coming from a variety of academic perspectives and specialities ranging from psychiatrists to sociologists to architects. With remarkably few exceptions, virtually every one of the studies has documented the pain and suffering that isolated inmates endure and the significant risk of serious psychological harm to which they are exposed. These broad patterns have also been consistently identified in the personal accounts of persons confined in isolation, and in descriptive studies authored by mental health professionals who worked in many such places. Moreover, the conclusions are also theoretically sound in that they are based on broad scientific knowledge about the psychological effects of social deprivation and isolation in a variety of other contexts outside of prison.[182] According to Dr. Haney, the central harmful feature of solitary confinement is the reduction of meaningful social contact. Psychologists know that social contact is fundamental to establishing and maintaining emotional health and well-being. Conversely, social isolation in general is potentially very harmful and can undermine health and psychological well-being. Prolonged social deprivation is painful and destabilizing in part because it deprives people of the opportunity to ground their thoughts and emotions in a meaningful social context – to know what they feel and whether those feelings are appropriate. Numerous scientific studies have established the psychological significance of social contact and connectedness. They have concluded, among other things, that the human brain is literally “wired to connect” to others. Thwarting this “need to connect” not only undermines psychological well-being but also increases physical morbidity and mortality.[183] According to Dr. Haney, the social deprivation imposed by solitary confinement leaves inmates with no choice but to adapt in socially pathological ways. Over time, they gradually change their patterns of thinking, acting and feeling to cope with the profoundly asocial world in which they are forced to live, adapting to the absence of social support and the routine feedback that comes from normal, meaningful social contact. Not surprisingly, this has problematic consequences. As they become increasingly unfamiliar and uncomfortable with social interaction, some inmates become further alienated from others and made anxious in their presence. Although their adaptations may have been functional in isolation, they are typically acutely dysfunctional in the social world most inmates are expected to re-enter. In extreme cases, these ways of being are not only dysfunctional but have been internalized so deeply that they become disabling, interfering with the capacity to live a remotely normal or fulfilling social life. In this way, long-term isolation can make inmates’ adjustment to general population especially painful and challenging.[184] Dr. Haney says that although social deprivation is the source of the greatest psychological pain that inmates experience in solitary confinement and places them at the greatest risk of harm, administrative segregation units frequently deprive inmates of other things as well. These units operate by imposing high levels of repressive control, enforce almost complete idleness or inactivity on inmates, reduce positive environmental stimulation to a bare minimum, and impose physical and material deprivations that collectively produce psychological distress and can exacerbate the negative consequences of social deprivation. Most beneficial features – such as participation in institutional programming, contact visits with persons from outside the prison, opportunities for meaningful physical exercise or recreation – are either functionally denied or greatly restricted. Thus, in addition to the social pathology that is created by the experience of solitary confinement, these other stressors also can produce additional negative psychological effects.[185] Studies have identified some of the symptoms that appear to be produced by these conditions as including appetite and sleep disturbances, anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, paranoia, hallucinations, and self-mutilation. Moreover, direct studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions. These effects include increases in the following potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviours: anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, rage, paranoia, hopelessness, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behaviour.[186] In addition, self-mutilation and suicide are more prevalent in isolated, punitive housing units such as administrative segregation. For example, clinical researchers have attributed higher suicide rates in solitary confinement-type units to the heightened levels of “environmental stress” that are generated by the isolation, punitive sanctions, and severely restricted living conditions that exist there.[187] The prevalence of the psychological symptoms suffered in solitary confinement is often very high. For example, in an early study, Dr. Haney conducted systematic assessments of a randomly selected sample of 100 inmates housed at the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison in California. He found that every symptom of psychological distress that he measured but one (fainting spells) was suffered by more than half of the inmates who were interviewed. Many of the symptoms were reported by two-thirds or more of the inmates assessed, and some were suffered by nearly everyone. Well over half of the inmates reported a constellation of symptoms – headaches, trembling, sweaty palms, and heart palpitations – that are known to be stress-related.[188] Dr. Haney also found that almost all of the inmates whom he evaluated reported ruminations or intrusive thoughts, an oversensitivity to external stimuli, irrational anger and irritability, difficulties with attention and often with memory, and a tendency to socially withdraw. Almost as many inmates reported a constellation of symptoms indicative of mood or emotional disorders – concerns over emotional flatness or losing the ability to feel, swings in emotional responding, and feelings of depression or sadness that did not go away. Finally, sizable minorities of the inmates reported symptoms that are typically only associated with more extreme forms of psychopathology – hallucinations, perceptual distortions, and thoughts of suicide.[189] In addition to these specific symptoms and reactions of psychological stress, other significant aspects of the psychological pain and dysfunction that prolonged solitary confinement can produce in inmates include damage to or distortion of their social identities, destabilization of their sense of self and, for some, destruction of their ability to function normally in free society.[190] Dr. Haney expresses the opinion that indeterminacy is a particularly problematic feature of segregation. Based on his work conducting systematic assessments of isolated inmates in the United States, it is his experience that the indeterminacy of segregation placements exacerbates its painfulness, increases frustration, and intensifies the depression and hopelessness that is often generated in these environments.[191] Dr. Haney says that these conclusions about the harmfulness of segregation are not only widely accepted in the scientific community but also reflect a large and growing consensus in correctional circles as well as among a wide range of mental health, legal and human rights organizations worldwide that have opined on the matter. As he notes in his expert report:The list of professional groups and organizations that have explicitly recognized the harmful psychological consequences of exposure to solitary confinement and, as a result, have taken official positions in favor of significantly limiting when, for how long, and on whom it can be imposed has grown dramatically over the last ten years. It is now truly daunting. The list includes human rights organizations …, professional oversight bodies …, religious groups …, medical and mental health associations …, and correctional organizations …In addition, a committee of the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, the National Academy of Science, concluded that solitary confinement could precipitate such “serious psychological change” in prisoners that the practice itself “is best minimized.” As the American Psychological Association, the world’s largest professional association of psychologists, recently stated: “Solitary confinement is associated with severe harm to physical and mental health among both youth and adults, including: increased risk of self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation; greater anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, paranoia, and aggression; exacerbation of the onset of pre-existing mental illness and trauma symptoms; [and] increased risk of cardiovascular problems.” …[Emphasis in original.][192] The widespread recognition of the harmful effects of solitary confinement has led to a consensus about three important limits that must be applied to its use: (1) because the risks of psychological and physical harm increase as a function of the increased length of exposure, the use of the practice must be limited to the briefest amount of time possible; (2) solitary confinement must be used only when it is absolutely necessary and as a last resort; and (3) the added risk to vulnerable groups requires that they be exempted entirely from prolonged solitary confinement.[193] While some organizations call for an outright ban on the use of solitary confinement, many recommend strict time limits on its use, limits that are typically measured in days and weeks. Dr. Haney testified that the international standard is a 15-day maximum, which he accepts as defensible. He testified, “what I am sure of is that the longer somebody is there the greater the risks”.[194] As for the exacerbating effects of segregation on mental illness, Dr. Haney states that there are sound theoretical reasons that explain why inmates with serious mental illness have a much more difficult time tolerating the painful experience of segregation. In part, it is because of the greater vulnerability of the mentally ill in general to stressful, traumatic conditions…”—-end of quotation from Court judgement—-Also you may like to see this image of emotional pain that is stored in our bodies and our bodies never forget.Information from Heal Your Body A-Z by Louise L. Hay, this her emotional map of what trauma looks likehttp://www.holisticgardner.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/emotionalbodychart.pdfWe have so much to do to bring serious reforms!