The article in Australia's fourth-largest newspaper focuses on the expansion of pedophilia to include a hebephelic subtype and the placement of a "so-called paraphilic coercive disorder" (rape-proneness) in the upcoming manual's appendix as a proposed condition meriting further study.
Most mental health professionals in Australia use the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic nomenclature, enshrined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), rather than the International Classification of Diseases (IMD), the international standard promulgated by the World Health Organization.
Australian psychiatrists and psychologists worry that the sexual disorder expansions will pave the way for more civil detention, in violation of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or, conversely, may be used by sex offenders to minimize or avoid legal punishment.
Indeed, in a case currently in the news in Melbourne, a well-known chef who sexually exploited vulnerable 13- and 14-year-old girls has introduced expert testimony on hebephilia as a mitigating factor. At a presentencing hearing, a defense-retained psychiatrist testified that Simon Humble suffered from hebephilia and would find prison difficult.
In addition to quoting clinicians and scholars in Australia, reporter Amy Corderoy reached across the Pacific to discuss the issue with your faithful blogger, a recent guest in Queensland; her article links back to this blog.
1 comment:
Psychiatrist Danny Sullivan told the court that Humble suffered from hebephilia, not pedophilia, which means he is attracted to young adolescents.
Humble SUFFERS? . . . Apparently, many psychiatrists already see this as a "disorder," although the debate continues. Of course, the defense-retained psychiatrist was working to get the charges thrown out on the basis that Humble supposedly "suffers" from a "disorder" and therefore is irresponsible for his behavior.
The "hebephilia" issue alone is deeply complex: On the one hand, the inclusion of 'hebephilia' in the DSM is a dangerous consideration because the attraction/preference has no scientific basis and is indicative of natural inclinations, but is being pushed for the sake of achieving pretextual agendas (a bad thing); yet the notion of 'hebephilia' as a viable condition is wholeheartedly embraced by a number of psychiatrists as a means of saving their clients (an apparent a good thing). On the other hand, the civil commitment of many individuals on the basis of 'hebephilia' clogs up the penal system with those who don't meet the criteria of a mental disorder while at the same time violates constitutional rights, whereas the disregard of 'hebephilia' by the court system tends to breed fear and panic among the general public . . .
No matter which way the issue leans, it fosters both positives and negatives.
This will indeed be interesting to follow to see how it will turn out . . .
Post a Comment