Objective:

To describe and review the use of apomorphine in aversion/repulsion therapy administered as a “cure” to homosexuality, particularly in the 1960’s and 1970’s

Background:

Apomorphine is a dopaminergic agonist that was first introduced as an emetic (1870’s). Until the 1970’s, it was the drug of choice for any condition requiring prompt emptying or cleaning of the stomach. Due to its emetic and sedative properties, apomorphine was also used to induce aversive conditioning, to both addictive substances (mainly alcohol) and so-called “sexual deviations” (including fetichism, homosexuality, transvestism).

Design/Methods:

A nonsystematic database (PubMed, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Internet Archive, BnF Gallica) search for French and English articles related to the use of apomorphine in aversion therapy for homosexuality was undertaken. This search was supplemented by a screening of online newspapers archives (Newspapers.com®) with the search terms apomorphine, aversion therapy and homosexuality (1869-2023)

Results:

During the 1960’s and 1970’s, apomorphine was an integral part of aversion therapy for homosexuality in Britain and Australia. The scientific articles on this topic are mainly authored by three psychiatrists: Nathaniel (Neil) McConaghy (Australia), who wrote extensively on this technique, Michael J. Raymond (England) and Malcolm J. MacCulloch (England). Apomorphine was used to induce nausea concomitant to the presentation of male nude pictures, alongside electric shocks, and psychotherapeutic techniques. The media coverage of these “therapies” was mainly laudatory at the time, reporting “successful” cases and even headlining “Sex cure”.

Conclusions:

Conversion therapies, now amounted to torture by United Nations expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, were not uncommon in the British Commonwealth in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Apomorphine was part of the “therapeutic” armamentarium alongside emetine and electric shocks. It also appears that media coverage at the time was favorable to these practices, both morally and clinically.