Thursday, June 16, 2011

Psychiatrist: Time to drop “silly” hebephilia once and for all

"Striking new evidence" should place the nail in the coffin of a "poorly conceived" proposal to turn sexual attraction to pubescent minors into a new mental disorder, says the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force in a new blog post at Psychology Today.

Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University, has vocally opposed efforts to expand psychiatric diagnoses in the upcoming edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), due out in 2013.

In the wake of the DSM leadership's recent abandonment of a controversial new diagnosis for rapists, Frances says it is also past time to relegate "hebephilia" to "the obscurity it has so long and so justly deserved":

'Hebephilia' is a medical-sounding term for what is a purely legal issue--the statutory rape of pubescent youngsters aged 11-14. This is a crime deserving punishment, not a mental disorder deserving psychiatric hospitalization…. The 'hebephilia' proposal was always a poorly thought out, obvious non-starter. It failed on conceptual grounds, was unsupported by scientific evidence, and would create disastrous forensic problems. 

Four strikes and you're out

Frances lists four “strikes” against the proposal. In the first place, he points out, attraction to pubescent teenagers is biologically “hard-wired,” not deviant. Second, the research literature is “pathetically thin, methodologically flawed, and mostly completely irrelevant to whether it should be considered a mental disorder.” Third, the construct is a “forensic nightmare” that is already being abused in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment proceedings.

Lastly, Frances lambasts the claim that the number of sex crimes an individual has committed can be the basis for an accurate diagnosis. According to Frances, an independent data analysis just accepted for publication by Behavioral Sciences and the Law debunks that assertion. The article, by Richard Wollert and Elliot Cramer (online HERE), delivers "a piercing nail to seal the coffin" on hebephilia, writes Frances:
Reanalyzing the original raw data with appropriate statistical methods, they found that (contrary to the original report) there was an extremely high false positive rate in identifying 'hebephilia.' This had been obscured by an obvious statistical error in the original analysis--the highly selective sampling of subjects at the poles of the continuum, arbitrarily excluding those in the middle.
Frances’s full essay, at his Psychology Today blog DSM in Distress, is HERE.

1 comment:

  1. Karen,

    I submitted this comment at the DSM-5. It was accepted, but I don't know where to go to view the comments so far. Is it possible there?

    In any case, here it is:

    The comments you have submitted are as follows:

    U 03 Pedohebephilic Disorder

    The Proposal suggesting the addition of an attraction to young adolescents is unscientific and goes against the "hard-wiring" of nature. Sexual disorders cannot, in all rightfulness, be dictated by age, age disparity or by what is deemed criminal. Science and even nature do not work that way.

    Furthermore, the research to substantiate the topic of said proposal (i.e. hebephilia or pedohebephilia) as a legitimate disorder is scant at best, and the methodology used to ascertain findings is/was flawed due to an elimination of a central/middle sample necessary for study and comparison, among other noted statistical errors. The end result was inconclusive at best.

    http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2011/06/psychiatrist-time-to-drop-silly.html#comment-form

    One should keep in mind an interesting side note: An overwhelming community of specialists in the field--on two continents--have already unanimously voted against it:

    http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/psychiatrists-vote-no-on-controversial.html

    In conclusion, I must, in all conscience, submit my vote against this proposal as well. Let science be what science is!

    In any case, I just thought I'd share it with you all. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

    R1

    ReplyDelete

 
Real Time Web Analytics