Offener Brief an »Homoheiler« Dr. Stephan Brücker

Ein Beitrag der Jungen Piraten Saxn.

Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Brücker,

die sächsischen PIRATEN fordern nach einem Bericht des NDR über sogenannte »Homoheiler« den Entzug der ärztlichen Zulassung für Ärzt*innen, die Scheintherapien zur angeblichen „Heilung“ homosexuell veranlagter Menschen betreiben.

Wie unsere Recherchen ergeben haben, gehören Sie zu diesen Ärzt*innen. (Quelle)

Wir leben in einer Gesellschaft, die zu weiten Teilen Heterosexualität immer noch als einzig erstrebenswerte Norm ansieht. Die Folgen sind gravierend: Einsamkeit, Sucht, psychischen Erkrankungen, Essstörungen, Rauswurf und Flucht von Zuhause, Mobbing und Gewalt – bis hin zu Suizid. So ist allein das Suizidrisiko von Lesben und Schwulen zwischen 12 und 25 Jahren vier- bis siebenmal höher, als das von Jugendlichen im Allgemeinen.

Es gibt zahlreiche Menschen und Organisationen, die versuchen, unsere Gesellschaft in dieser Hinsicht ein kleines bisschen besser zu machen. Bestrebungen, die Sie, wie zahlreiche andere Unterzeichner der Marburger Erklärung „Für Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung“, als »totalitär« diffamieren.

Nicht ihre sexuelle Veranlagung treibt Menschen in den Suizid. Es sind Menschen wie Sie, die nicht-heterosexuellen Menschen eine „Heilung“ versprechen, anstatt ihnen zu helfen, mit ihrer Sexualität und den damit einhergehenden Problemen wie der allgegenwärtigen Diskriminierung umzugehen. Es sind Menschen wie Sie, die Heterosexualität als Norm und jede andere sexuelle Veranlagung als Abnorm propagieren und damit zum Hass auf nicht-heterosexuelle Menschen beitragen.

Damit sind Sie des Arztberufs unwürdig. Wir fordern Sie auf, daraus die entsprechenden Konsequenzen zu ziehen. Auch werden wir uns wie die PIRATEN dafür einsetzen, dass die Landesdirektion Sachsen Ihnen nach § 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BÄO Ihre ärztliche Approbation entzieht.

Mit freundlichen Grüße,
Ihre Jungen Piraten Sachsen

4 Responses to “Offener Brief an »Homoheiler« Dr. Stephan Brücker”

  1. Nachgedacht sagt:

    Liebe Junge Piraten,

    einige Fragen:

    Ist Ihnen die Ichdystone Sexualorientierung bekannt? (http://www.icd-code.de/icd/code/F66.-.html) Darf ein Psychologe / Arzt noch diese Diagnose stellen und seine Hilfe anbieten?

    Wären Sie so nett, auf eine einzige empirische Studie hinzuweisen, die gesellschaftliche Diskriminierung als primäre Ursache für „Einsamkeit, Sucht, psychischen Erkrankungen, Essstörungen, Rauswurf und Flucht von Zuhause, Mobbing und Gewalt – bis hin zu Suizid“ ausmacht. Es sind gravierende Vorwürfe, die Sie erheben. Bitte, bitte machen Sie sich doch die Mühe und finden Sie eine Studie…

    Laut Gender-Theorien ist die sexuelle Identität fließend und verläuft auf einem Kontinuum von ganz heterosexuell zu ganz homosexuell. Wenn ein Mann seine Frau und Kinder verlässt, weil er plötzlich seinen homosexuellen Empfindungen Folge leisten möchte, wird ihm Beifall geklatscht und ihm geraten, er solle eine gay-affirmative Therapie machen. Warum darf aber ein verheirateter Mann, nicht versuchen, seinen heterosexuellen Impulse zu folgen und eine heterosexuell-affirmative Therapie zu machen?
    Welche Vorgehensweise würden sich für die Frau und die Kinder das geringste Leid verursachen?

    Über eine differenzierte, gut recherchierte Antwort würde ich mich freuen!

    Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

    JSLR

    • Ans sagt:

      Sehr geehrte*r JSLR,

      zur ichdystonen Sexualorientierung bitte Ursachen und Auswirkungen beachten: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichdystone_Sexualorientierung#Ursachen_und_Auswirkungen

      Studien gibt es bereits én masse:

      Over the past decade, consensus has grown among researchers that at least part of the explanation for the elevated rates of suicide attempts and mental disorders found in LGB people is the social stigma, prejudice and discrimination associated with minority sexual orientation (Cochran, Mays & Sullivan, 2003; de Graaf at al., 2006; King et al., 2008; Mays & Cochran, 2001; McCabe, Bostwick, Hughes, West, & Boyd, 2010). The terms gay-related stress (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Gwadz, 2002; Rotheram-Borus, Hunter & Rosario, 1994) and minority stress (Meyer, 1995, 2003) have been used to describe a range of stressors resulting from individual and institutional discrimination against LGB people.

      INDIVIDUAL DISCRIMINATION

      There is ample evidence that across the lifespan, LGB people commonly experience discrimination in the form of personal rejection, hostility, harassment, bullying, and physical violence. One especially powerful stressor for LGB youth is rejection by parents and other family members. Several nonrandom studies have found an association between parental rejection because of sexual orientation and higher risk of suicide attempts among LGB youth (D’Augelli, Grossman, Salter, et al., 2005; D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Remafedi et al., 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009). One study of White and Latino LGB young adults aged 21–25 (Ryan et al., 2009) found that those who experienced frequent rejecting behaviors by their parents or caregivers during adolescence were over eight times more likely to report making a suicide attempt than those with accepting parents. Young Latino gay and bisexual men reported the highest number of rejecting behaviors and were more likely than Latina females or White respondents to report suicide attempts. The impact of parental and family rejection is suggested by the alarmingly high number of LGBT adolescents and young adults who are homeless, estimated to constitute 20–40% of the almost 2 million homeless youth in the United States (Ray, 2006).

      A nationally representative U.S. survey (Russell & Joyner, 2001) and several nonrandom studies in the United States and abroad (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Friedman, Koeske, Silvestre, Korr, & Sites, 2006; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Ploderl & Fartacek, 2007; Rivers, 2004; Saewyc, Singh, Reis, & Flynn, 2000; Savin-Williams, 1994) have linked suicidal behavior in LGB adolescents to school-based harassment, bullying or violence because of sexual orientation. The likelihood of gay-related victimization has been found to be especially high in youth with cross-gender appearance, traits or behaviors (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Fitzpatrick, Euton, Jones, & Schmidt, 2005; Friedman et al., 2006; Ploderl & Fartacek, 2007; Remafedi et al., 1991), or who express minority sexual orientation at an early age (Friedman, Marshal, Stall, Cheong, & Wright, 2008). Population-based research in the Netherlands found an association between suicidal behaviors among gay/bisexual men and perceived discrimination due to sexual orientation (de Graaf et al., 2006).

      Analyses of data from large public health surveys of U.S. adults have also demonstrated a link between discrimination and hostile treatment based on sexual orientation, and increased risk of substance use and other mental disorders. Data from the National Survey of Midlife Development showed elevated anxiety, depression and other stress-related mental health problems in LGB adults aged 25–74 who reported personal experiences with discrimination (Mays & Cochran, 2001). Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (2004–2005) further documented the association between personal experiences of discrimination and interpersonal violence on elevated rates of substance use disorders (McCabe, Bostwick, et al., 2010) and posttraumatic stress disorder (Roberts, Austin, Corliss, Vandermorris, & Koenen, 2010) in LGB adults over the age of 20.

      There is some evidence that the interrelationship among gay-related stressors, mental disorders and suicidal behavior may vary between different racial and ethnic groups. A nonrandom study of almost 400 ethnically diverse, self-identified LGB adults aged 18–59 living in New York City (Meyer et al., 2007) found that White participants had significantly higher rates of mood disorders than Black or Latino individuals. Black and especially Latino individuals, however, reported significantly higher rates of lifetime suicide attempts than did whites, with most attempts occurring before the age of 20. A key hypothesis emerging from the study, which is currently being tested, is that suicide risk among Black and Latino LGB people is more strongly related to major stressful events associated with coming out, such as assault, abuse and homelessness, than to depression and other mental disorders.

      INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

      Institutional discrimination results from laws and public policies that create inequities or fail to provide protections against sexual orientation-based discrimination. Using the NESARC data, Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, and Hasin (2009) found that LGB adults who lived in one of 19 states that lacked specific protections against sexual orientation-based hate crimes or employment discrimination had significantly higher prevalence of mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders, compared to heterosexual adults living in those states and LGB adults living in states that extended protection in at least one of these areas. LGB respondents in states without protective policies were almost five times more likely than those in other states to have two or more mental disorders.

      A subsequent study (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010) examined the effects of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the mental health of LGB adults. Such amendments gained impetus following the passage of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which affirmed that states are not required to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman (The ‘Lectric Law Library, 1996). Using the NESARC data from 16 states that enacted constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage during 2004 and 2005, the researchers found significant increases in mental disorders among self-identified LGB respondents in these states between wave 1 (2001–2002) and wave 2 (2004–2005) of the survey. Specifically, mood disorders increased by more than one-third, from 23 to 31% of LGB respondents. Increases were also found in generalized anxiety disorder, from 3 to 9%, and alcohol use disorder, from 22 to 31%. By contrast, no comparable increases in mental disorders between the two waves of the survey were observed in heterosexual respondents living in these 16 states. Noting that the constitutional amendments largely underscored preexisting state laws, the researchers hypothesized that the negative mental health impact on LGB citizens stemmed primarily from the hostile political campaigns and public discourse that preceded their passage, which further promulgated stigma and reinforced the marginalized social and legal status of LGB people.

      Among LGB respondents living in the 34 states where constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage were not enacted during the period examined, increases in generalized anxiety disorder and substance use disorders were also found between the two waves of the survey, possibly related to extensive national media coverage of the amendment campaigns and the associated anti-gay rhetoric. Again, comparable increases in mental disorders were not found in heterosexual respondents living in the same states.

      Prohibiting same-sex marriage has also been found to result in significant disparities in health insurance coverage between heterosexual and same-sex couples (Buchmueller & Carpenter, 2010; Carpenter & Gates, 2008; Heck, Sell, & Gorin, 2006; Ponce, Cochran, Pizer, & Mays, 2010). One recent study in California found that partnered lesbians and gay males were more than twice as likely to be uninsured as married heterosexuals, primarily because of lower rates of employer-provided coverage of dependent partners (Ponce et al., 2010). Using data from the California Health Interview Survey in 2001, 2003, and 2005, the study found that partnered gay men were less than half (42%) as likely to have dependent health insurance coverage as married heterosexual men, and partnered lesbians were only 28% as likely to have coverage as married heterosexual women. Even when insurance coverage is offered to domestic partners, this study noted that the benefit is not financially equivalent to that provided to heterosexual married spouses because federal law requires unmarried partners to pay income tax on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples who have been legally married in a U.S. state or other jurisdiction are treated as unmarried for this and all other federal tax provisions.

      Lack of health insurance coverage among persons with mental disorders has been related to delays in treatment-seeking (McLaughlin, 2004) and to self-treatment with alcohol and other substances and the development of psychiatric and physical comorbidities (Wang, Berglund, Olfson, & Kessler, 2004). It is not clear whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Government Printing Office, 2010) will close the insurance gap currently faced by many same-sex couples. While requiring large employers to provide health insurance to employees and their dependents, the law does not specify that domestic partners be included as covered dependents, and does not address the tax burden imposed on domestic partners who are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance (Ponce et al., 2010).

      Im Text verlinkt gibt’s die hier: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/

  2. JSLR sagt:

    Liebe Junge Piraten Saxn,

    das ist eine Menge Studien… Doch ob es tatsächlich auch so ist, dass sie alle auf Diskriminierung und soziale Stigmatisierung als primäre Ursache für die gut dokumentierten „mental health disorders“ hinweisen, wage ich doch zu bezweifeln.

    Nur, dass wir uns nicht missverstehen: jedem Menschen, der leidet, muss geholfen werden. Doch was mich immer wieder verärgert, ist, wenn eine sehr lautstarke Lobby monokausal auf etwas verweist – frei nach dem Motto, die anderen sind schuld an meinem Unglück –, ohne eigenes Mitverschulden zumindest vorsichtig auch in Betracht zu ziehen. Das verunmöglicht ein sachliches, vor allem wissenschaftliches Untersuchen und Prüfen der tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten, die Homophobie-Keule tut ein Übriges.

    Nun denn, die erste Studie, auf die als Nachweise für Diskriminierung als Ursache verwiesen wird, ist die von „Cochran, Mays & Sullivan, 2003“.

    An dieser Stelle kann ich es nicht lassen, dass Zitat noch einmal zu bringen: „consensus has grown among researchers that at least part of the explanation for the elevated rates of suicide attempts and mental disorders found in LGB people is the social stigma, prejudice and discrimination associated with minority sexual orientation“. Ein Teil der Ursache [meine Hervorhebung…], d. h. es gibt wohl auch andere Gründe…

    Doch was sagt Cochran et al. anno 2003, dessen Studie den Titel trägt: „Prevalence of Mental Disorders, Psychological Distress, and Mental Health Services Use Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States“?

    „[O]ur findings underscore the growing body of work suggesting that minority sexual orientation status is a risk indicator for differences in both prevalence and patterns of mental health disorders and service use. The cause for this is not known;“ Hopla, not known wie in nicht bekannt, oder wir wissen es nicht.

    Doch warte, es geht weiter: „however, there is reasoned sense that it might be related to the effects of social stigma surrounding homosexuality“, na also, da hätten wir es, wobei „reasoned sense that it might be“ nach meinen Kenntnissen in etwa mit „es gibt vernünftige Gründe, dass es vielleicht sein könnte“ übersetzt wird. Das hört sich nicht ganz hieb- und stichfest an.

    Inzwischen wird das Zitat aber spannend: „or the subtle ways in which the lives of lesbians and gay men differ from those of heterosexual women and men (Cochran, 2001):“ Es könnte also doch etwas mit dem Lebensstil zu tun haben, der Homosexuellen wohlgemerkt, nicht der umgebenden Gesellschaft.

    Doch da das anscheinend auf gar keinen Fall sein darf, hängen Cochran et al. gleich noch einige Konjunktive an: „The mechanisms by which this occurs may include experiences with discrimination […] or perhaps other psychosocial factors, such as deficits in social support […] or HIV-related grief. Only future research examining these issues can clarify the actual causal factors that may account for the differences observed here and elsewhere.“
    May, perhaps…

    Mit anderen Worten, die Studie Cochran, Mays & Sullivan, 2003 weist keinen Zusammenhang zwischen der untersuchten psychischen Störungen und gesellschaftlicher Diskriminierung.

    In den kommenden Wochen werde ich nach und nach weitere Studien besorgen und daraufhin lesen, ob es eine einzige Studie gibt, die empirisch nachweist, dass gesellschaftliche Diskriminierung und soziale Stigmatisierung als Hauptursache für die tatsächlich schlimmen Befunde gelten kann.

    Auf meine Frage, ob Gender nun fließend oder von Geburt an festgezurrt ist, habe ich Ihrerseits noch keine Antwort gefunden…

    Mit freundlichem Gruß,

    JSLR

Was denkst du?