But aren’t psychologists and psychiatrists subordinate to some umbrella organization or association? They operate according to accepted doctrines in their field. Shouldn’t the umbrella organization have the authority to revoke the license of someone who acts contrary to the organization’s doctrine or the accepted method?
A doctor too, if he departs from accepted medical practice, will have his license revoked. Unless, of course, he validates his method through research, in which case it becomes part of conventional medicine.

If a therapist uses an alternative method, nobody will forbid it even if he’s a charlatan. Oren Zarif and the other charlatans operate freely without interference, as long as they declare that they are not doctors and that their treatment is not a substitute for medical treatment.

The control exercised by guilds is itself problematic. But even if we accept it for the sake of discussion, there is a psychological approach that does accept conversion therapy. It’s certainly no worse than the collection of nonsense those people do in other areas. As long as there is transparency and the therapist tells the patient about the problems, the disagreements, the expected harms, and so on, I see no reason to forbid it.

There definitely are psychologists who accept conversion therapy (first you have to define what conversion therapy is), including secular psychologists. It’s just that in our liberal world nobody gives those psychologists a platform, so as not to sound backward. If you want to hear about the subject, it’s recommended to listen to Rabbi Arleh Harel.

Honorable Rabbi, as I understand it, the issue is: haven’t you gone a step too far? Shouldn’t the conversion therapies you are referring to be ones without harm and without violence? As far as I understand, the reason people oppose conversion therapy is that it is known and clear that there will be treatments that are psychologically or physically violent.
Is everything that is “transparent” and consensual okay?
If my friend agrees that I beat him until he bleeds / amputate one of his limbs, is that permitted according to your view? (Death is a bit too populistic, so I left that out.) Should prostitution also be legally permitted for the same reason?

If you mean certain kinds of conversion therapy in which there are only “carrot” methods, without the stick and without risk of suicide, please spell that out.
Thank you, with very great respect

Indeed. Anything done with consent and transparency between adults should be permitted. Including prostitution, incest, amputation of a limb, and whatever else you like. In the case of amputating a limb, of course, you must bear the treatment costs yourself or not receive treatment.

And also abolish the minimum wage, allow businesses to waive sanitary supervision and safety matters like fire prevention, etc.?

Well then, Honorable Rabbi, I fully accept your position.

I do not accept the position of those who oppose suicides / prostitution / violence and killing by consent, yet specifically in conversion therapy they agree to violence “because they’re adults.”

Tirgitz,
Indeed. In principle I agree with all of these. But the matter has to be qualified by practical limitations. Sanitary supervision and safety issues are in the interest of the general public, so instead of waiting for customer demand there is no reason not to require them on the public’s behalf a priori. But if there is someone who insists on offering an unsafe service transparently and his customers agree to it—good luck to him. I assume there won’t be such cases, so this is a hypothetical question.
And regarding minimum wage, there may be a market failure there that justifies intervention. But I’m not sure, because clearly after some time the market should balance out and provide fair wages. The question is what about those who, during the interim period, will receive low wages. Especially since during that period the state is supposed to support them socially, it seems the state has the right to intervene and require employers not to impose such expenses on it.
And so too with safety and sanitation requirements: these antics are likely to impose costs on the state, and therefore it has the right to impose its own mandatory requirements.

Is this a position that stems from a principled conception of justice and liberty, or is it a socio-economic position that such restrictions in practice harm overall happiness?
[If “the state” decides to support someone socially, can it force others to support that person in its place? By the way, another example for the pile: the offense of exploiting a relationship of authority in the workplace should seemingly be abolished according to this as well.]

The former—a principled conception of justice and liberty.
[The state, as one that supports all its citizens and businesses, can tax them, and therefore it can also require them not to cause it expenses.]

With considerations like those, couldn’t one also prohibit conversion therapy? (Those who prohibit it, from their standpoint, would be happy to say they are concerned about the economic and health damages, etc.)

In my opinion, no. They can say that if there are damages, treating them will be at the expense of the injured person.