Bipolar disorder by proxy proposed for DSM-5

New diagnosis to address "critical clinical need"

Although some scholars warn of dangers posed by the proposed expansions of psychiatric disorders, others say there remains a critical shortage of accurate diagnoses for those who need them. At a forensic psychiatry conference last month, for example, proponents said three new sexual disorders are needed to address an urgent clinical reality.

Incorporation of such broad-brush conditions as "psychosis risk syndrome," "temper dysregulation disorder," and "hebephilia" into the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), due out in 2013, will help address the diagnostic shortfall, the clinical realists say. But more should be done.

To help meet the needs of those few who remain undiagnosed, California psychologist Michael Donner has proposed an umbrella disorder. To qualify for the newly minted Bipolar by Proxy (BPP), patients must meet at least one of the following criteria during the preceding two-year period:

1. A pervasive sense of well being
2. Repetitive episodes of sadness or pleasure while engaging in pleasant or unpleasant activities, typically lasting for the duration of the activity
3. A minimum of one episode of feeling extremely excited or irritated
4. Two or more episodes of crying, or three or more episodes of an urge to cry
5. Engaging in laughing behavior when confronted with something humorous
6. A general willingness to comply with a prescription medication regimen despite having no overt symptoms
7. One or more major medical health insurance reimbursement plans

As a rule-out, the disorder must not occur in the presence of any other previously undiagnosed mental illness. Nor can it be due to the direct physiological effects of exogenous substances (e.g., drugs of abuse or medications).

There may be no need to market a new drug for this condition. The prescription depressant Despondex (see below video) has been on the market for more than a year and targets annoying exuberance, a core symptom of Bipolar by Proxy that often alerts clinicians to conduct a more thorough diagnostic workup.

Although the reliability of the proposed diagnosis has not yet been established through clinical replication studies published in peer-reviewed journals, this should not be a barrier as field trials are being planned in time to make it into the manual just under the wire. The sites for the field trials will be strategically selected to maximize positive findings. Similarly, high inter-rater reliability will be assured through careful selection, training, and certification of raters by the Bipolar By Proxy Promulgation Association. The journal whose editorial board is dominated by that Association is expected to publish the positive findings. The larger question of validity is not thought to be a problem, as many other current and proposed diagnoses lack real-world validity.

Related post:

Despondex: Is psych mania overreaching? (June 22, 2009)

Photo credit: Eva Blue, Creative Commons License, Peaceful Heart Doctor, San Francisco Chinatown

Europeans first to shoot down controversial paraphilia

Resounding 100-to-1 vote against "pedohebephilia"

I was impressed by the unanimity of opposition to the sexual paraphilias among forensic psychiatrists at their annual conference last week in Tucson, Arizona.

But as it turns out, the sex experts of Europe had the Americans beat, both in numbers and timing.

At last month's meeting of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (IATSO) in Oslo, Norway, the vote was approximately 100 to 1 against the controversial diagnosis of "pedohebephilia," according to two reliable sources. The lone dissenting voice was a member of the DSM-5 committee.

I hope the DSM revisers are listening. If not, they are going to end up the laughingstock of the world.

Richard Green, MD: "Hebephilia is a Mental Disorder?"

The vote at the IATSO conference, where European psychiatry is strongly represented, came after a talk by Richard Green, a prominent psychiatrist, sexologist, and professor at the Imperial College of London. Green served on the Gender Identity Disorders subcommittee for DSM-IV, and was a leading advocate for removing homosexuality from the DSM back in the 1970s. In a published critique of the hebephilia proposal, he pointed out the parallels:

The parody of science masquerading as democracy made a laughing stock of psychiatry and the APA when it held a popular vote by its membership on whether homosexuality should remain a mental disorder. Decreeing in a few years time that 19-year-olds who prefer sex with 14-year-olds (5 years their junior) have a mental disorder … will not enhance psychiatry’s scientific credibility.

He has also pointed out that the age of legal consent in several European countries falls within the range that the proposed disorder would make pathological for the older participant.

A separate audience poll at the IATSO conference on the proposed diagnosis of hypersexuality was more mixed, with about a third favoring the diagnosis, a third opposing it, and a third undecided, according to one of my sources.

NPR report on AAPL debate

Meanwhile, National Public Radio has reported on Saturday's AAPL vote against the paraphilias. Reporter Alix Spiegel blogged about it on NPR's health blog, "SHOTS," under the heading "Forensic Psychiatrists Don't Favor Some Proposed Sexual Diagnoses."

These negative votes will have no a direct impact on the DSM-5, now due out in 2013. In the case of the controversial sexual paraphilias, one Canadian research group is dominating the process and most of the upcoming field trials will be done at government detention facilities where insular opinion runs heavily in favor of the diagnoses.

Proponents of the paraphilia revisions are urging supporters to lobby the DSM committee. It seems that, as we have seen in the past, lobbyists may have an inordinate impact, overshadowing valid science.

But if the American Psychiatric Association kowtows to this special interest niche and ignores the broader consensus of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals around the world, this will certainly reduce the credibility of the manual in years to come.

UPDATE: My Psychiatric Times coverage of the debate, "Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias," is online HERE.

Psychiatrists vote no on controversial paraphilias

By an overwhelming majority, a group of seasoned forensic psychiatrists who work with sex offenders voted last night against three controversial new sexual disorders being proposed for the DSM-5.

The votes were 31-2, 31-2, and 29-2, respectively, against Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, Pedohebephilia, and Hypersexual Disorder. The votes came at the end of a debate at the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) in Tucson, Arizona.

The rejection is symbolic, but sends a strong message to the DSM-5 developers. One of the six debate panelists, Richard Krueger, is a member of the Paraphilias SubWorking Group. Two other panelists serve as advisors to the committee. In the audience were prominent forensic psychiatrists who took stances regarding similar proposals during previous revisions of the DSM.

The American Psychiatric Association, to which most forensic psychiatrists belong, publishes the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now in its fourth edition. But psychiatrists have not played a central a role in the 20-year-old sex offender civil commitment industry, which is lobbying for these new diagnoses. Much of the planned field testing will be done at civil commitment sites.

The debaters

Arguing for and against Hypersexual Disorder were two prominent psychiatrists with decades of experience in assessing sexual disorders. Richard Krueger, on the "pro" team, is a Columbia University professor and medical director of the Sexual Behavior Clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. John Bradford, an advisor to the DSM-IV and past president of AAPL, is a Distinguished Fellow of the APA, last year earning its prestigious Isaac Ray Award. The University of Ottawa professor is founder and clinical director of the Sexual Behaviors Clinic in Ottawa. He expressed concern about how clinicians would determine how much sexual preoccupation is excessive, and voiced worry that homosexual men might be disproportionately given the label.

Two Wisconsin psychologists debated "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder," which would apply to rapists. Thomas Zander took the "con" position while David Thornton of the Sand Ridge Secure Detention Center for sexually violent predators was "pro." This is the third time that the American Psychiatric Association has considered such a diagnosis.

Tackling Pedohebephilia were two Northern Californians, forensic psychiatrist Douglas Tucker ("pro") and your faithful blogger ("con"). The controversial proposal would expand pedophilia from its current definition, in which the target of sexual attraction must be prepubescent, to young pubescents as old as 14.

The debate was organized by forensic psychiatrist Lynn Maskel, a clinical professor at the University of California-San Diego.

Clinical versus forensic utility?

The three-member "con" team focused on two main themes:

• All three proposed diagnoses lack a sufficient scientific basis.

• They are highly likely to be misused in the forensic context, the primary site for their application.

The "pro" debate team repeatedly insisted that these diagnoses are being proposed based on their scientific merit, not their utility to government evaluators in civil commitment cases. They said these new diagnoses are needed so people suffering with these conditions can get adequate treatment.

The clinical needs argument is a red herring. Clinicians are not turning away patients with problematic sexual behaviors because the proper billing code is missing from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Rapists will not flock in for needed treatment when they hear that a Paraphilic Coercive Disorder label is now available for them.

The audience of forensic psychiatrists clearly did not buy the clinical justification. As more than one audience member asked the panel, If the rationale is strictly clinical, why are attorneys serving as advisors to the work group?

Back in 1986, the last time Paraphilic Coercive Disorder was proposed for the DSM, it was defeated in large part due to the opposition of forensic psychiatrists (not pesky feminists, as the historical revisionists would have it). Hopefully, history will repeat itself with respect to all three of these poorly conceptualized and dangerous proposals.

The debate was audiotaped, and will be available for purchase from AAPL. The texts of the proposed diagnoses can be viewed at the DSM-5 website. My resource page on Hebephilia is HERE. Thomas Zander’s article, Inventing Diagnosis for Civil Commitment of Rapists, is online HERE.

Photo: (L to R) John Bradford, Karen Franklin, Thomas Zander, David Thornton, Douglas Tucker, Richard Krueger. Photo credit: Luis Rosell.

UPDATE: My Psychiatric Times coverage of the debate, "Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias," is online HERE.

Sexual sadism diagnosis not predictive

In another blow to the controverial sexual paraphilia diagnoses, a group of prominent researchers has found that the diagnosis of sexual sadism is not related to sex offender recidivism. Unlike some of the made-up paraphilias being used in court to justify civil commitment of sex offenders, sexual sadism is actually listed in the American Psychiatric Association's current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), and it is planned for inclusion in the upcoming fifth edition as well.

The longitudinal study followed almost 600 convicted sex offenders for up to 20 years. The researchers found that a sexual sadism diagnosis did not predict any type of recidivism. This was in contrast to sexual arousal to violence as measured phallometrically, which was associated with future violence, including sexual violence.

The study replicates and extends what the authors call "accumulating evidence of specific problems with the reliability of paraphilia diagnoses, including sexual sadism."

[O]ur results raise questions about the clinical utility of the DSM diagnosis of sexual sadism. This appears to be a problem for other paraphilia diagnoses as well [including pedophilia].

The findings are relevant to the upcoming fifth edition of the DSM, the authors note, because the proposed criteria for sexual sadism are "very similar" to the criteria in current and previous editions.

The study, "Comparing indicators of sexual sadism as predictors of recidivism among adult male sexual offenders," by Drew Kingston, Michael Seto, Philip Firestone, and John Bradford, appears in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Global alarm mounts: "Will anyone be normal?"

What do some of the world's top mental health experts have in common with best-selling British author Sir Terry Pratchett, the former prime ministers of Australia and Norway, and Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s son, memoirist Mark Vonnegut? All are issuing calls of alarm over the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association's upcoming diagnostic manual, in a special issue of the Journal of Mental Health.

Due to their important public policy implications, the Journal is making the lineup of commentaries available to the public for free. In a press release, the Journal points out that the previous DSM revision led to a wave of false "epidemics" of such conditions as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autistic disorder, childhood bipolar disorders, and that the new edition may lead to more of the same.

"The publication of the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is one of the most highly anticipated events in the mental health field," explains Managing Editor Daniel Falatko. "This is the first major rewrite of DSM in 16 years and history has warned us that even small changes to this manual can have extraordinary repercussions in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues."

The theme running throughout the special issue is widespread fears in the psychiatric community that the expansion of diagnostic guidelines will allow everyone to qualify for psychiatric disorders, which in turn will lead to greater prescription of psychiatric drugs, many of which have unpleasant and dangerous side effects.

At a joint briefing, mental health experts expressed particular fear over the proposed "psychosis risk syndrome" diagnosis, which could falsely label young people who may only have a small risk of developing an illness.

"It’s a bit like telling 10 people with a common cold that they are 'at risk for pneumonia syndrome' when only one is likely to get the disorder," said Dr. Til Wykes of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London.

The free articles, some by psychiatric patients, include:

• Diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis: towards DSM-5 by Til Wykes and Felicity Callard
• Are psychiatric diagnoses of psychosis scientific and useful? The case of schizophrenia by Jim Van Os
• Misdiagnosing normality: Psychiatry's failure to address the problem of false positive diagnoses of mental disorder in a changing professional environment by Jerome C. Wakefield
• DSM-V and the stigma of mental illness by Dror Ben-Zeev, Michael A. Young, and Patrick W. Corrigan
• Conceptualisation of mental disorder and its personal meanings by Derek Bolton
• Patients can diagnose too: How continuous self-assessment aids diagnosis of, and recovery from, depression by Peter C. Groot
• Diagnosing Clapham Junction syndrome by Terry Pratchett
• What my diagnosis means to me by Mike Shooter
• Depression and recovery by Sarah Mitchell
• Personal Reflections on Diagnosis by Mark Vonnegut
• On the impact of being diagnosed with schizophrenia by Frederick J. Frese
• Tackling Depression by Geoff Gallop
• Psyche, soma, and science studies: New directions in the sociology of mental health and illness by Martyn D. Pickersgill

Related news articles:

• Globe and Mail (UK): Mental health experts ask: Will anyone be normal? Binge eating, temper tantrums may become new diagnoses
• BBC News: Mental health: are we all sick now?

I have blogged extensively about the controversies surrounding the DSM-5. These prior blog posts can be conveniently accessed HERE.

Hat tip: Jane

Normality endangered: "Psychiatric fads and overdiagnosis"

That's the title of this week's Psychiatric Times commentary by Dr. Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and psychiatry professor emeritus at Duke University. The column begins:

Fads in psychiatric diagnosis come and go and have been with us as long as there has been psychiatry…. In recent years the pace has picked up and false "epidemics" have come in bunches involving an ever-increasing proportion of the population. We are now in the midst of at least 3 such epidemics -- of autism, attention deficit, and childhood bipolar disorder. And unless it comes to its senses, DSM5 threatens to provoke several more (hypersexuality, binge eating, mixed anxiety depression, minor neurocognitive, and others).

Fads punctuate what has become a basic background of overdiagnosis. Normality is an endangered species. The NIMH estimates that, in any given year, 25 percent of the population (that’s almost 60 million people) has a diagnosable mental disorder. A prospective study found that, by age thirty-two, 50 percent of the general population had qualified for an anxiety disorder, 40 percent for depression, and 30 percent for alcohol abuse or dependence. Imagine what the rates will be like by the time these people hit fifty, or sixty-five, or eighty. In this brave new world of psychiatric overdiagnosis, will anyone get through life without a mental disorder?

While focusing on the alarming spread of psychiatric diagnoses among children, as he has in the past Dr. Frances touches on the forensic implications of diagnostic freneticism:

Mental disorder labels can provide cover for societal problems. Criminal behavior has been medicalized (eg, rape as a psychiatric disorder) because prison sentences are too short and such labeling allows for indefinite psychiatric commitment.

Frances concludes:

The DSM-5 bias to thrust open the diagnostic floodgates is supported only by flimsy evidence that does not come close to warranting its great risks of harmful unintended consequences. It is too bad that there is no advocacy group for normality that could effectively push back against all the forces aligned to expand the reach of mental disorders.

The full essay is HERE.

"Hebephilia: Quintessence of Diagnostic Pretextuality"

New from Behavioral Sciences & the Law ...

I never set out to become an expert in this terra incognita. But, alas, here I am. Despite my mixed feelings, I am excited to announce that Behavioral Sciences & the Law has just published my research article deconstructing this pseudoscientific construct. Here is the abstract:

Hebephilia is an archaic term used to describe adult sexual attraction to adolescents. Prior to the advent of contemporary sexually violent predator laws, the term was not found in any dictionary or formal diagnostic system. Overnight, it is on the fast track toward recognition as a psychiatric condition meriting inclusion in the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This article traces the sudden emergence and popularity of hebephilia to pressure from the legal arena and, specifically, to the legal mandate of a serious mental abnormality for civil commitment of sex offenders. Hebephilia is proposed as a quintessential example of pretextuality, in which special interests promote a pseudoscientific construct that furthers an implicit, instrumental goal. Inherent problems with the construct's reliability and validity are discussed. A warning is issued about unintended consequences if hebephilia or its relative, pedohebephilia, make their way into the DSM-5, due out in 2013.

After providing the history and scientific status of hebephilia, I conclude:

Significant unintended consequences are likely if novel syndromes of primary benefit to the sex offender commitment industry are incorporated into the upcoming edition of the DSM. First, at a time of mounting controversy over partisan influence and lack of scientific rigor in the DSM diagnostic system, critics will seize on this as a glaring example of arbitrary and unscientific use of psychiatric diagnosis in the service of a pragmatic goal. This could have the paradoxical effect of reducing the scientific credibility of the DSM and the fields of psychiatry and psychology more broadly. In the forensic arena, where the diagnosis will most often be invoked, it may paradoxically invigorate defense challenges on the grounds that psychiatry is being deployed in a pretextual manner. In the end, hebephilia will come to haunt not only those who are civilly committed on pretextual grounds, but the entire mental health field, for years to come.

Links to more articles on this topic can be found on my HEBEPHILIA RESOURCES PAGE; my blog essay from 2007 on the "Invasion of the Hebephile Hunters" is HERE.

"DSM-5 and sexual disorders: Just say no"

Psychology urged to oppose psychiatric monopoly

When one introduces new chickens into an existing flock, the flock establishes a pecking order. The older birds peck the new ones into submission. With lower status, the new birds feel -- to anthropomorphise a bit -- inferior.

That's what happened when the upstart field of psychology pushed its way into the bastions of psychiatry. Psychiatrists bristled at the intrusion. Psychologists of necessity submitted to psychiatric authority. Now, years later, psychologists vastly outnumber higher paid psychiatrists in many mental health niches, but as a profession we still have an inferiority complex. Thus, we let a single psychiatric association in the United States dictate how mental functioning and impairment are conceptualized.

As the chorus of critical voices over the American Psychiatric Association's poorly drawn draft DSM-5 manual grows ever louder, some are urging psychology to issue a formal opposition paper. For example, Stephen Diamond, a clinical and forensic psychologist in Los Angeles, writes in Psychology Today that our profession's apathy "is a big part of the problem":

While clinical psychology has to some extent leaped onto this same biological bandwagon driven by contemporary psychiatry, seeking prescription privileges, some psychologists and other non-medical mental health professionals have practically written off the value and importance of psychodiagnosis today -- in part precisely due to its inherent medicalization, biological bias, dehumanizing labeling, and notorious inaccuracy…. [I]t is time for the leadership of the American Psychological Association to take a far more active and public role in the revision and direction of the DSM-5…. What, if anything, [is] the American Psychological Association is doing about DSM-V? Or about the hypermedicalization of psychology?

Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who chaired the DSM-IV task force, has become one of the most vocal critics of the manual's proposals. He too is calling on organized psychology to step up before it is too late. Taking his campaign directly to psychology and the general public, he hosts a "DSM5 in distress" column in the popular magazine Psychology Today that shines a spotlight by turn on various problematic aspects of the draft manual. In his recent call for an organized response from psychology, he writes that:

the American Psychiatric Association (APA) came to hold the DSM franchise only by historical accident…. Now that the DSMs have attained such importance, there have been repeated questions about the appropriateness of its continued sponsorship by more than just one professional organization…. The numerous problems that have bedeviled the development of DSM5 again raise the question whether the American Psychiatric Association should be sole steward of an official diagnostic system that impacts on all mental health disciplines…. Individual psychologists and the professional associations within psychology can play an important role in pointing the way forward for DSM5 and in protecting it from costly mistakes.

Perilous forensic consequences

Frances is increasingly focusing on the monumental potential for negative and unintended consequences in the forensic realm of the proposed changes:

The most obviously detrimental suggestions are in the paraphilia section, where the proposed change to the definition of paraphilia and the likely suggestion to introduce a new diagnosis of "paraphilic coercive rapism" will greatly compound the significant mischief already initiated by a seemingly trivial change in DSM-IV. More generally, even small changes in wording can result in large forensic confusion once parsed by lawyers in their peculiarly rigorous and tendentious fashion. The wording of every suggested option in DSM5 needs careful review by forensic experts.

"DSM-5 sexual disorders make no sense"

In a more recent column, Frances specifically targets the Big 3 sexual disorders that I have extensively blogged about. Of all of the DSM-5 work groups, he writes:

the Sexual Disorders Work Group has strayed furthest off the reservation. It has made a series of radical and dangerous suggestions that need to be dropped.... Each of the Work Group's suggestions is based on the thinnest of research support-usually a handful of studies often done by members of the committee making the suggestion. None has been subjected to, or could possibly survive, anything resembling a serious risk/benefit or forensic analysis.

As he points out, there are few researchers and little good research on sexuality. Consensus on the bounds of "normalcy" does not exist, and cultural bias plays a major role in what is defined as pathological (a point cogently made by Richard Green in his critique of the proposed hebephilia diagnosis). Especially important for my readers, "decisions regarding the diagnosis of sexual disorders can have profound and unanticipated forensic ... implications."

Regarding the three paraphilia proposals that will have the most impact in civil commitment proceedings in the United States, Frances had the following to say:

"Paraphilic Coercive Disorder"

This proposal was explicitly rejected for DSM IIIR and was given no serious consideration for DSM IV. The problem is the impossibility of reliably distinguishing between the small group of hypothesized "paraphilic" rapists (who would be given a mental disorder diagnosis) and the much larger group of rapists who are simple criminals.

The distinction has taken on huge significance because [of] SVP statutes mandating indefinite (usually in practice lifelong) inpatient civil psychiatric commitment for individuals who have (1) completed their prison sentence for a sexually violent crime, (2) have a diagnosed mental disorder, and (3) are deemed likely to repeat.... Although the SVP statutes have twice passed Supreme Court tests, they rest on questionable constitutional grounds and may sometimes result in a misuse of psychiatry.

Most disturbingly, an ad hoc and idiosyncratic suggested diagnosis -- Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified -- has become a frequent justification for the psychiatric commitment of rapists who are really no more than simple criminals. Raising this diagnosis to official status would greatly compound this misuse of civil psychiatric commitment.

"Hypersexuality Disorder"

This is the strangest of constructs.... The fundamental problem with "hypersexuality" is that it represents a half baked, poorly conceptualized medicalization of the expected variability in sexual behavior.... The authors are trying to provide a diagnosis for the small group whose sexual behaviors are compulsive -- but their label would quickly expand to provide a psychiatric excuse for the very large group whose misbehaviors are pleasure driven, recreational, and impulsive. The offloading of personal responsibility in this way has already captured the public and media fancy and would spread like wildfire. Making an official mental disorder category of "hypersexuality" would also have serious unintended forensic consequences inthe evaluations of sexually violent predators (SVP).

"Pedohebephilia"

This new category would extend the traditional definition of Pedophilia ... to include pubescent teenagers. Clearly, sex with underage teenagers is reprehensible and deserves appropriate punishment under the penal code. It is, however, anything but clear when (and if) sexual behaviors with teenagers should qualify as a mental disorder. This diagnosis would be subject to the same misuses in SVP cases as has been described above.

With such widespread and vigorous opposition, it's hard to imagine these nutty proposals slipping into the DSM-5. But, stranger things have happened in the field of psychiatry.

Related article:

DSM-5 and "Psychosis Risk Syndrome": Not Ready For Prime Time
Dr. Frances' latest piece, in Psychiatric Times, is on Psychosis Risk Syndrome, one of the scariest diagnostic proposals. If adopted, it would likely lead to a wave of false-positive errors in which teenagers are wrongly identified as future schizophrenics and placed on dangerous antipsychotic medications.

Hat tips: Ken Pope, Andrew H.
Graphics credit: Raul Crimson (Creative Commons license 2.0)

Forensic fallout of revamping personality disorders

What is a personality disorder?

Your answer likely depends on whether you are a mental health professional, a layperson, or a member of the legal profession, where the term can have a highly scripted meaning with weighty implications.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Washington just ruled that the precise definition is so critical that a judge's refusal of a defense request to define it for a jury invalidated a civil detention order. That's because in Washington, a convicted sex offender cannot be civilly committed to a state hospital unless he has either a personality disorder or a "mental abnormality" that makes him more likely than not to commit sexually predatory acts in the future. The legal distinction between these two conditions derives from the DSM's axial system, under which most illnesses are listed on Axis I but personality disorders are categorized as "Axis II," because they are conceptualized (not always accurately) as more chronic and enduring than acute Axis I disorders.

At the trial of Curtis Pouncy, the prosecution-retained psychologist, Richard Packard, had testified that Curtis Pouncy had both conditions. The jury ultimately found Pouncy to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), but it did not state whether this finding was on the basis of a personality disorder, a mental abnormality, or both. Explained the Supreme Court in overturning the commitment:

"The phrase 'personality disorder' is not one in common usage and is beyond the experience of the average juror. It is a term of art under the DSM that requires definition to ensure jurors are not 'forced to find a common denominator among each member's individual understanding' of the term…. We have no way of knowing from the verdict whether the jury found that Pouncy was an SVP because he suffered from a mental abnormality or a personality disorder. And, if the jury agreed Pouncy suffered from a personality disorder, we have no way of knowing what definition the jury used in reaching this conclusion…. We cannot say the failure to instruct on the definition of 'personality disorder' in no way affected the final outcome of the case; accordingly, it was not harmless. A new trial is required."

The government of Washington is so interested in the precise meaning of the term that in 2009 it actually codified the definition for purposes of SVP civil commitment. Tagging off of the definition in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), the Revised Code of Washington Section 71.09.020(9) now defines a personality disorder as:

"an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time and leads to distress or impairment. Purported evidence of a personality disorder must be supported by testimony of a licensed forensic psychologist or psychiatrist."

As Constance Holden reports in the current edition of Science magazine, "Personality disorders are hard to pin down. They don't have a common defining mood or behavior, people don't get hospitalized for having one, and a drug won't cure one."

If that sounds tricky, wait until the American Psychiatric Association adds layer upon layer of new complexity, and in the process completely scraps the definition as reified by government entities such as the Washington state legislature. Under a draft proposal rolled out last month for the new DSM-5* (due out in 2013), the old personality disorders are barely recognizable and some have disappeared altogether.

• First off, the overarching definition will be new. Now, personality disorders are defined more briefly as:

"the failure to develop a sense of self-identity and the capacity for interpersonal functioning that are adaptive in the context of the individual's cultural norms and expectations."

Both self-identity and interpersonal functioning are then further defined. For example, poor interpersonal functioning involves failure to develop empathy, intimacy, cooperativeness, or "complexity and integration of representations of others."

• Next, one rates the person on a set of six traits (negative emotionality, introversion, antagonism, disinhibition, compulsivity, and schizotypy) to determine whether the general adaptive failure is "associated with extreme levels of one or more" of these.

• Finally, there are the specific personality "types," whittled down from the current 10 to only five: Schizotypal, Borderline, Obsessive-Compulsive, Avoidant, and Antisocial/Psychopathic. Note that psychopathy will make its grand debut, while narcissistic exits stage left.

In his erudite competency opinion in the Brian David Mitchell case, Judge Dale Kimball leaned heavily on narcissistic personality disorder as an explanation for the defendant's presentation. If the Personality Disorders Work Group for the DSM-5 gets its way, that diagnosis will go the way of of hysteria and melancholia. Of course, as the judge wisely pointed out, DSM diagnoses are not directly applicable to ultimate legal issues:

"[I]t is not particularly necessary for the court to determine a specific diagnosis in determining competency.... [E]ither an Axis I or Axis II condition could potentially render a defendant incompetent. And, on the other hand, a defendant could have an Axis I and/or Axis II condition and still be competent."

So, what do you get when you combine five personality types with six crosscutting traits? "A camel -- a horse made by committee," psychologist Drew Westen of Emory University told Science magazine.

And in forensic contexts, how will terms such as "culturally adaptive," "empathy," "cooperativeness," "negative emotionality," and "antagonism" be operationalized? Based on research into how forensic evaluators decide about other value-laden constructs such as psychopathy and risk, dare I predict partisan allegiance will rear its ugly head?

Paul A. Siciliano at Basically Law has more on the Pouncy decision. Psychologist Simone Hoermann has commentary on the DSM-5 personality disorders revamp at her Personality Disorders blog.

*The current DSM and all previous editions are designated by Roman numerals, but the APA has decided to use Arabic numerals starting with the fifth edition.

Photo credits: (1) Vagamundos (Creative Commons license 2.0); (2) Kaptain Kobold (Creative Commons license 2.0) 

 * * * * *

DSM-5 POSTSCRIPT: Following much brouhaha, the American Psychiatry Association ultimately did not adopt the more radical proposed changes to the personality disorders for the DSM-5, nor did it remove Narcissistic Personality Disorder (much beloved in some psychiatric quarters) as one of the types. However, the entire axial system (i.e., the distinction between Axis I mental disorders versus Axis II personality disorders) was eliminated. Meanwhile, contemporary research is suggesting that personality disorders -- for example Borderline and Antisocial disorders -- are not nearly as enduring or lifelong as the DSM definitions continue to suggest.

New critique of proposed hypersexuality disorder

Although the construct of hypersexuality is becoming popular with clinicians, strong empirical evidence for its validity is lacking, according to a new critique in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The author, Jason Winters, is a research psychologist involved with the High Risk Sex Offender Program of the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission in Vancouver, BC.

As with other disorders being proposed for DSM-5, due out in 2013, the boundary between normalcy and supposed pathology is fuzzy and arbitrary, writes Winters. Findings from a recent Internet survey he conducted suggest that more than four out of every ten men and one out of five women might meet the "excessive sexuality" criterion, operationalized as an average of seven or more orgasms per week.

And if behaviors that interfere with other responsibilities are evidence of pathology in the sexual realm, why not create formal mental disorders for other types of preoccupations? For example, why not pathologize a tenure-track professor who prioritizes academic work over family and friends? (I was glad Winters did not mention excessive blogging as an example of a potential mental illness, but then I remembered that Internet Addiction has already been proposed for the DSM.)

The criterion of engaging in sexual behavior to enhance mood is similarly problematic:

[I]f we are to accept that repeatedly engaging in sexual behaviors to enhance mood is symptomatic of a distinct sexual disorder, then we must also be willing to accept that repeatedly engaging in non-sexual rewarding behaviors for a similar effect is symptomatic of other corresponding mental disorders…. [But] the DSM does not include disorders of watching too much television, or shopping, exercising, or working too much.

As Winters points out, an unstated bias against sexual expression outside of a traditional monogamous marital dyad seems the basis for calling some sexual behaviors -- such as one-night stands, anonymous sex, and multiple partners -- evidence of disease.

Ultimately, he concludes that while excessive sexuality may be problematic and distressing for some, and in such cases merits clinical attention, a new diagnosis may be of "dubious value."

Except, I might add, to the civil commitment industry, increasingly desperate for new diagnoses to justify the civil commitment of sex offenders who do not qualify for recognized mental illnesses.

Latest hebephilia critiques: Point-counterpoint

I've just updated my Hebephilia and the DSM-5 Controversy resources page with two new articles in the Archives of Sexual Behavior critiquing the proposed diagnosis of pedohebephilia.

Green: Moral standards masquerading as science

In his boldly titled "Sexual Preference for 14-Year-Olds as a Mental Disorder: You Can’t Be Serious!!," prominent psychiatrist and sexologist Richard Green pulls no punches. Green, who teaches at the Imperial College of London, served on the Gender Identity Disorders subcommittee for DSM-IV. Back in the 1970s he was a forceful advocate for removing homosexuality from the manual of mental illnesses, a struggle he references in his current critique:

The parody of science masquerading as democracy made a laughing stock of psychiatry and the APA when it held a popular vote by its membership on whether homosexuality should remain a mental disorder. Decreeing in a few years time that 19-year-olds who prefer sex with 14-year-olds (5 years their junior) have a mental disorder … will not enhance psychiatry’s scientific credibility.

As he points out, the age of legal consent in several European countries falls within the range that the proposed pedohebephilia disorder would make pathological for the older participant:

If the general culture is accepting of participation by the younger party, but psychiatry pathologizes participation by the older party, then the mental health profession pronounces a moralistic standard and, if successful, becomes an agent of social control.

Green goes on to catalog "biased terms" and "logically frail arguments" in the proposal. In this, he joins a growing chorus of voices sounding the alarm about myriad problems with the proposed pedohebephilia diagnosis.

O'Donohue: Let's go even further

Coming at it from the opposite angle of most critics is William O'Donohue, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada at Reno and co-editor of the second edition of the widely consulted text Sexual Deviance.

O'Donohue argues for keeping it simple: "any sexual attraction to children … is a pathological, abnormal condition." His proposed diagnosis reads as follows: "The person is sexually attracted to children or adolescents under the age of 16" as evidenced by (1) self report, (2) laboratory findings, and/or (3) past behavior. Whether the person has acted on his or her attractions would not matter. The number of victims would not matter. And internal distress would not be required.

O'Donohue expresses a lack of concern over the inevitable false positive errors that such a broad net would ensnare. He argues that we should be more concerned about false negative errors -- pedophiles who escape diagnosis when the criteria are too narrow, for example when more than one known victim is required. And he applauds the move to expand pedophilia to include hebephilia, or attraction to pubescent minors.

Prosecution-retained evaluators in U.S. civil commitment cases will be salivating at the prospects for this one. But consider the source. O'Donohue is the psychologist who has argued for subjecting gay and lesbian parents to special scrutiny in child custody evaluations. (Respected child custody experts Jonathan Gould, David Martindale, and Melisse Eidman wrote an outstanding counterpoint, summarizing the empirical research as indicating that "sexual orientation is not a pertinent factor when considering the best psychological interests of children." In the interest of full disclosure, I share that view, as I wrote in an article published in the same journal a few years earlier.)

And, despite his support for diagnostic expansion, even O'Donohue concedes that the psychometric properties of the proposed diagnosis remain unknown. In other words, neither its reliability nor its validity have been empirically established. A wee problem, that.

A list of published articles on the hebephilia debate, with links to the publisher's web pages, is HERE. For the newest additions, look for the "NEW" icon towards the bottom of the page.

More prominent voices join chorus of DSM5 critics

With the unveiling of the draft DSM5, the chorus of well-aimed criticisms flying in from all sides is becoming truly spectacular. The latest voices are prominent scholars writing in the eminently respectable Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post.

All three focus on what most critics agree is an especially troubling aspect of the proposed manual -- the "wholesale medical imperialization" that eventually will label nearly every human being with one or more psychiatric pathologies. The authors of the DSM, critics assert, have appointed themselves as the arbiters of what is normal and what is not.

Wall Street Journal: Psychiatry in demise

Edward Shorter, a University of Toronto professor and preeminent scholar of the history of medicine, gives a historical overview of the DSM's development to support his verdict that the latest draft manual illustrates a discipline in demise.

To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline's floundering writ large. Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications. Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn't exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo.

Los Angeles Times: Overdiagnosis gone berserk

Allen Frances, chairman of the DSM-IV task force, has been sounding the alarm over this new manual far and wide of late. This latest essay is perhaps his most eloquent to date, and of direct relevance to forensic practice in that it focuses on the proposed sexual disorders that will be used pretextually in civil commitment proceedings:

The first draft of the next edition of the DSM, posted for comment with much fanfare last month, is filled with suggestions that would multiply our mistakes and extend the reach of psychiatry dramatically deeper into the ever-shrinking domain of the normal. This wholesale medical imperialization of normality could potentially create tens of millions of innocent bystanders who would be mislabeled as having a mental disorder. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day -- despite the lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses.

The sexual disorders section is particularly adventurous. "Hypersexuality disorder" would bring great comfort to philanderers wishing to hide the motivation for their exploits behind a psychiatric excuse. "Paraphilic coercive disorder" introduces the novel and dangerous idea that rapists merit a diagnosis of mental disorder if they get special sexual excitement from raping….

Frances urges the public to pay attention and voice opposition to psychiatry's "recklessly expansive suggestions" before the juggernaut becomes unstoppable:

This is a societal issue that transcends psychiatry. It is not too late to save normality from DSM-V if the greater public interest is factored into the necessary risk/benefit analyses.

Washington Post: George Will weighs in

Finally, prominent political columnist George F. Will weighed in on the moral implications of the proposed diagnostic expansions. Will expressed worries about the legal consequences of excusing amoral conduct as a symptom of uncontrollable illness.

The 16 years since the last revision evidently were prolific in producing new afflictions. The revision may aggravate the confusion of moral categories.

Today's DSM defines "oppositional defiant disorder" as a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Symptoms include "often loses temper," "often deliberately annoys people" or "is often touchy." DSM omits this symptom: "is a teenager." …

[C]onfusion can flow from the notion that normality is always obvious and normative, meaning preferable. And the notion that deviations from it should be considered "disorders" to be "cured" rather than stigmatized as offenses against valid moral norms.

Now that just about every major news outlet in the United States has run highly critical analyses, the question becomes: Will the American Psychiatric Association listen? Or, like an individual in the throes of a manic episode, will it continue its pell-mell rush to diagnose all human behaviors, creating an ever-broader assortment of bizarre pathologies?

Hat tip: Bruce

DSM-V: Will shoddy manual implode years before launch date?

The DSM-V debacle continues to expand like a mushroom cloud following a nuclear explosion. Media pundits right and left are commenting critically on the draft manual, published online after years of cloak-and-dagger secrecy.

As most of you know by now, the American Psychiatric Association has granted the public a very brief window in which to comment online on the draft proposals. I haven't seen an explanation of how public input will be tallied or used. Will a popularity contest influence psychiatric diagnosis? We've seen how well citizen input works here in California, where the initiative process has brought government to a standstill. Can you imagine neurologists setting up a website to get lay input on a new diagnostic scheme for brain tumors? This debacle only underscores the point that the DSM is more politics than science.

Among the best commentaries I've seen this week are Sally Satel's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and Allen Frances' piece in Psychiatric Times. Science magazine also has an interesting analysis of the proposed behavioral disorders, which would medicalize harmful habits like gambling, overeating, and down the line perhaps "Internet Addiction." All three articles touched on the negative forensic consequences of the radical proposed changes.

"Prescriptions for Psychiatric Trouble"

Psychiatrist Sally Satel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine, and a brilliant thinker, critiqued psychiatry's endless drive to expand mental disorder, placing ever-larger "swaths of the population under the umbrella of pathology." As Satel points out, the DSM-V continues the troubling tradition, launched 30 years ago with publication of the manual's third edition, of elevating reliability over validity:

[J]ust because two examiners concur that a person qualifies for a particular diagnosis does not mean that he has an authentic mental illness. How do we know, for example, that a person diagnosed with major depressive disorder (the formal designation for pathological depression) is not actually suffering from a bout of natural if intense sadness brought on by a shattering loss, a grave disappointment or a scathing betrayal?

The manual will not help us here. In fact, a number of changes proposed for the DSM V (e.g., new diagnoses for binge eating, hoarding and hypersexuality) are likely to inadvertently place large swaths of normal human variation under the umbrella of pathology.

Both she and Allen Frances, former chair of both the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, believe that Psychosis Risk Syndrome may be the scariest example of overinclusion. Hundreds of thousands of young people, especially the poor and minorities, could be given this highly stigmatizing label and medicated with extremely dangerous drugs, even though these medications are not very effective and the broad majority of these youngsters would not go on to develop psychoses if left alone.

In his critique in Psychiatric Times, aptly titled "Opening Pandora's Box," Frances notes that the DSM-V "would create tens of millions of newly misidentified false positive 'patients.' " Not only could almost anyone qualify for at least one of the new diagnoses (which include such nebulous constructs as Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder, Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, Temper Dysfunctional Disorder with Dysphoria, and -- in a big nod to America's 12-Step religion -- Addiction Disorder), but thresholds are being lowered for many existing disorders as well.

Forensic applications: Disastrous unintended consequences

One of the DSM-V developers' most troubling weaknesses is their profound "insensitivity to possible misuse in forensic settings," Frances notes. As an example, he cites Pedohebephilia, "one of the most poorly written and unworkable" proposals in the draft:

Expanding the definition of pedophilia to include pubescent teenagers would medicalize criminal behavior and further the previously described misuse of psychiatry by the legal system. Certainly, sex with under-age victims should be discouraged as an important matter of public policy, but this should be accomplished by legal statute and appropriate sentencing, not by mental disorder fiat.

Two other potential "forensic disaster[s]" are Hypersexuality Disorder and Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, both of which will be used to expand the pool of sex offenders eligible for indefinite civil commitment on the basis of purported mental disorder.

In Frances' opinion, based on having worked on the three previous editions of the DSM and knowing many of the drafters of the current version, critics are missing the mark by focusing on alleged financial and/or professional conflicts of interest. Rather, the DSM-V work group members are sincere and well meaning, but have a natural, "and seemingly irresistible," tendency to expand the boundaries of diagnoses in order to identify and treat all potential sufferers. This "diagnostic imperialism" produces a fatal blind spot:

Unfortunately, Work Group members … [miss] the fact that every effort to reduce the rate of false negatives must inevitably raise the rate of false positives (often dramatically and with dire consequences). It is inherently difficult for experts, with their highly selected research and clinical experiences, to appreciate fully just how poorly their research findings may generalize to everyday practice -- especially as it is conducted by harried primary care clinicians in an environment heavily influenced by drug company marketing…. [T]he DSM5 suggestions display the peculiarly dangerous combination of nonspecific and inaccurate diagnosis leading to unproven and potentially quite harmful treatments.

Frances strongly argues that the time to weed out implausible and even "incoherent" proposals is now, not after the proposed field testing:

I feel it is my responsibility to raise clear alarms now because the past performance of the DSM5 leadership does not inspire confidence in its future ability to avoid serious mistakes.... Field trials are arduous and expensive and make sense only for testing the precise wording of criteria sets that have a real chance of making it into the manual -- not for the many poorly written and far out suggestions that have just been posted. It seems prudent to identify and root out problems now lest they sneak through in what will likely be an eventual mad rush to complete DSM5....

Because of the secretive and closed nature of the DSM5 process, the expectable enthusiasms of the experts who comprise the Work Groups have not been balanced, as they must always be, with real world practical clinical wisdom and a careful risk/benefit analysis of the possible unintended consequences of every suggestion.

It would be reckless now to rely on the complacent assumption that all these problems will eventually come out in the wash. By its previous actions and inactions, the DSM5 leadership has sacrificed any "benefit of the doubt" faith that their process will be self-correcting in a way that guarantees the eventual elimination all of the harmful options.

Note: If you want to read Sally Satel's op-ed, do it now; after seven days, Wall Street Journal articles are only available by subscription. I highly recommend that forensic experts and attorneys carefully review Frances' article, and note his recommendation for greater forensic oversight. At minimum, if new diagnoses without established validity are included in the manual, the DSM should add a caveat that they are never to be used as grounds for civil commitment.

Special hat tip to the ever-helpful JANE

Forensic psychiatrist: Courts fostering "POLITICAL DIAGNOSIS"

After sex offenders, who will be next?

More leading experts are starting to notice and voice alarm over the pretextual use of psychiatric diagnoses in SVP civil commitment cases. In an editorial this week, a prominent forensic psychiatrist quotes the late Michael Crichton, calling it "bad science 'tricked out' for public policy ends."

Writing in the Psychiatric Times, James Knoll, psychiatry professor at SUNY-Syracuse and director of a forensic fellowship program, critiques both the questionable diagnoses and the shaky risk assessment techniques being used to civilly commit Sexually Violent Predators:

A variety of instruments have been developed (PCL-R, Static-99, Phallometry, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool, etc.); however, these tests are often challenged in courts as not meeting legal standards for expert evidence and testimony. So while the research database has grown, the question remains: is it reliable enough to be proffered as expert testimony? Experts in the field continue to have serious reservations, and express caution about the (mis)use of these instruments for expert testimony.

Turning to the questionable diagnoses being used in SVP cases, Knoll puts the onus squarely on the U.S. Supreme Court for creating a tautological and "politico-legal" definition of "mental disorder or abnormality" for use in these civil commitment proceedings:

[T]he courts may use our diagnoses when they choose to, and they may ignore them and/or devise their own if it suits public policy…. Since it is forensic mental health professionals who are tasked with SVP evaluations, they have attempted to give this term meaning within the confines of their science. Have these attempts reached a consensus? It would appear that they have not. There continues to be substantial disagreement….

When psychiatric science becomes co-opted by a political agenda, an unhealthy alliance may be created. It is science that will always be the host organism, to be taken over by political viruses…. [P]sychiatry may come to resemble a new organism entirely -- one that serves the ends of the criminal justice system.

If we want to know where all this is headed if someone doesn't slam on the brakes, Knoll points us across the Atlantic to the United Kingdom, where offenders are indefinitely committed on the basis of a nebulous "Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder" (DSPD):

Given the similarities between our SVP laws and the UK’s DSPD laws, is it too outrageous to speculate that a psychopathy (or DSPD-equivalent) commitment law might be on the U.S. horizon? Remember, the driving force behind such initiatives is usually only one highly publicized, egregious case away.

Related resource:

For an empirical study on the scientific problems with determining future violence under the UK's "Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder" law, see: Ullrich, S., Yang, M., & Coid, J. (2009), "Dangerous and severe personality disorder: An investigation of the construct," International Journal of Law & Psychiatry (in press). The ultimate conclusions are strikingly similar to the issues posed by Knoll.

The study found a high rate of false positives -- that is, people categorized as DSPD and at high risk of serious reoffending when they actually did not reoffend when tracked in the community: 26 DSPD offenders would need to be civilly committed to prevent one major violent act.

When tracking sex crimes, which are of particular public concern, the researchers found that most new sex offenses were committed by offenders who were NOT categorized as DSPD, undermining the UK Home Office and Department of Health assumption that offenders at the highest risk for future sex offending would be categorized as DSPD.

After critiquing the accuracy of actuarial techniques, the article concludes:

"Bearing in mind the inaccuracy of DSPD criteria in identifying high risk individuals ... the construction of medico-legal terms, as in the case of DSPD, appears highly questionable.... [M]any determinants of violence are circumstantial and situational, and will invariably change over time, rather than related to some inherent characteristics of the perpetrator.... [F]ar more research is necessary ... before attempting to integrate a psychiatric condition into a legal system."

Heed these warnings, folks. The way things are headed in the U.S. criminal justice system, I expect to hear expansion of civil commitment to other groups -- violent offenders, juveniles, and others -- being proposed any minute now.

Photo credit: SUNY Office of Public Affairs