As a mental health practitioner, social pressure has already impacted the law. In California, for example, if I were to address the issue of sexual orientation with anyone under the age of 18 – even if they specifically initiated the conversation – I would be subject to criminal charges as well as ethical charges. With “on-line customer service,” there are examples of my colleagues who refused patients out of their competency or for “ethical exemption” – both offering to refer to competent colleagues – and both received complaints to the licensing board for “discrimination.” Both cases were ultimately dismissed, but having to answer illegitimate complaints (including, “How might this case have been better resolved?”) was disconcerting.

There is, for example, a blanket ethical ban in the US on research – even with voluntary adult subjects – regarding the issue of the permeability of sexual orientation by the APAs (psychiatry & psychology), National Assoc. of Social Workers, Family Therapists, etc. without any empirical evidence that such research would necessarily cause harm. This is an unprecedented action prompted solely by social influence alone. While none of these organizations are “licensing” bodies, nor is membership necessary for practice, they are lobbyists who attempt to influence funding & social values. Research is the core to scientific discovery and frequent solutions; how is it possible that “scientific bodies” could ban research without some evidence of suspected harm? This, I believe, is the greatest danger of the coming “martyrdom”: the inability to challenge by empirical investigation. We are then victims of any popular “movement” of the time.