Fed court OK's unorthodox diagnoses for sex offenders

Last September, I posted about two legal challenges to the use of controversial psychiatric diagnoses to justify the civil commitment of sex offenders.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has since issued final opinions on both challenges, allowing the use of the diagnoses of "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified-Nonconsent" and "Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Antisocial Features." Neither diagnosis is included in the psychiatric bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), nor are they commonly invoked in mainstream psychology or psychiatry. In the DSM, "NOS" is a residual category used when someone does not meet all criteria for a listed disorder; many clinicians refer to it as a "garbage diagnosis." (For a facetious take on the NOS label, see this essay.)

The twin rulings, against sex offenders Bruce Brown and Michael McGee, echo similar rulings in other states that make it easier for the government to get sex offenders involuntarily hospitalized after they finish serving their prison terms. To be Constitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, such civil commitment based on a likelihood of future sex offending must be linked to a "mental disorder" or "mental abnormality." This is where psychologists and psychiatrists come in, and the industry has become a lucrative cash cow for some evaluators.

"Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified-Nonconsent"

The tone of Judge Lynn Adelman's decision in the case of Brown v. Watters was a turnaround from his earlier ruling in the same case, in which he had sent the case back to the state court for additional proceedings. At that time, last July, he expressed doubts about use of the diagnosis of Paraphilia NOS-Nonconsent to justify civil commitment, saying it might be too broad to pass Constitutional muster: "[I]t may be that every criminal convicted of a sexual crime could be diagnosed with the disorder."

As the judge noted, a paraphilia is defined in the DSM as a chronic pattern of intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving nonhuman objects, suffering or humiliation, or children or other nonconsenting persons.

Rape is not included as one of the paraphilias in the DSM, and use of the residual category of "Not Otherwise Specified" for this legal purpose is controversial.

As of this writing, Brown's case is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

"Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Antisocial Features"

In a related case brought by sex offender Michael McGee, the same court also upheld the use of the diagnosis "Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Antisocial Features" as a basis for civil commitment.

The parallel opinions interpret the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Kansas v. Crane as allowing such unorthodox diagnoses in the service of "practicality." The Crane case, said the opinion in McGee v. Bartow, "made clear that courts should be driven more by practical considerations than the technical distinctions underlying much of psychiatry." The government "has wide latitude in defining a term like 'mental illness' or 'mental abnormality,' " echoed the ruling in Brown v. Watters, and need not limit itself to diagnoses that are "generally recognized in the medical community."

In other words, so long as experts testify that a sex offender has a disorder that causes him to have serious difficulty controlling his sexually violent behavior, the offender's Constitutional right to due process is satisfied.

Evaluator disputes characterization

Meanwhile, Dennis Doren, a prominent sex offender evaluator who testified in the Brown case, has issued a written statement in response to the Brown v. Watters opinion and my blog post last September reporting on the ruling.

In his statement, "Setting the Record Straight," Doren said the court was mistaken in claiming that he testified that he had created the diagnosis of Paraphilia NOS-Nonconsent. Rather, he wrote, he simply changed the extant phraseology from Paraphilia NOS-Rape (a more legal term) to Paraphilia NOS-Nonconsent (a more medical term), while creating a list of diagnostic indicators which he published in a manual for sex offender evaluators.

It is certainly true that Doren did not invent the concept of a preferential desire to rape, which has been recognized for a long time and has been called everything from bioastophilia to rapism. But most observers agree that Doren's manual did popularize and legitimize use of the "NOS" diagnosis in the sex offender civil commitment industry.

Doren said he made his recommendations not only to "bridge the gap or defiiciency of the DSM-IV" but also out of concern that evaluators were overdiagnosing Paraphilia NOS based simply on behavior, without regard to the requirement that the offender demonstrate a preference for forcible sex.

This type of overdiagnosis in the pursuit of civil commitment is a valid concern. Research suggests that only a small percentage of rapists are motivated by a preferential sexual attraction to rape. And offenders who are mislabeled face the daunting prospect of lifelong hospitalization without the due-process protections afforded by the criminal justice system.

These controversial diagnostic issues in civil commitment proceedings may finally be about to get some much-needed scrutiny and debate. The editor of the DSM-IV-TR, Michael First, has two articles in press taking issue with the way the DSM paraphilia diagnosis has been interpreted in civil commitment proceedings. His forthcoming editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry is entitled "Issues for DSM-V; Unintended Consequences of Small Changes: The Case of Paraphilias." A lengthier analysis in the Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law is entitled "Use of DSM Paraphilia Diagnoses in Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Cases." Meanwhile, Doren's essay, "Setting the Record Straight," has also been accepted for publication, in Sex Offender Law Report.

Hat tip to Susan Sachsenmaier for alerting me to the Wisconsin case developments

DSM-5: Much ado about nothing? (Part I of II)

Ambitious "paradigm shift" fizzles 

By now, you've seen the bad press about the American Psychiatric Association's new diagnostic codebook: Media pundits are labeling it "a manual run amok," so ambitious in scope that almost everyone qualifies for some mental illness or another.

But browsing through my crisp new copy, I find myself curiously dispassionate. Sure, it's even more bloated than the DSM-IV. But mainly, they just moved the chapters around and renamed a diagnosis here and there (dysthymia, for example, is now persistent depressive disorder). Even the typefaces will look familiar.

It's downright anticlimactic.

Remember when they first announced work on the new DSM? It was going to be a revolutionary "paradigm shift," aligning diagnoses with modern science. Disorders were going to be dimensional rather than categorical. All kinds of novel proposals were in play: Parental Alienation Syndrome. Paraphilic Coercive Disorder. Psychosis Risk Syndrome.

Then came the backlash. Prominent work group members walked out over the lack of science in the revision process. Petitions were launched. Special interest groups lobbied. ("Aspies," for example, were furious that psychiatry had bequeathed them an identity and were now taking it back.) The field trials fell apart. Even the National Institute of Mental Health announced it was breaking away from the DSM's diagnostic schema (although switching to its biology-worshipping Research Domain Criteria is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire).

Ultimately, the psychiatrists retreated. With both drug money and membership numbers down, the last thing the American Psychiatric Association needed was more negative flak. Especially when the DSM rakes in a steady profit, $5 to $6 million per year, giving them "fabulous riches" over time.

So, you'll find a few notable changes: There’s disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, a belated effort to undo the damage wrought by overdiagnosis of childhood bipolar disorder. Hoarding disorder and the Big-Pharma-inspired premenstrual dysphoric disorder made the cut. But overall, it's just business as usual.

In the short term, the new manual will give the APA's coffers a big boost. The book alone retails for $130 or more, and -- like a blockbuster Disney movie -- there will be ancillary products including cell phone apps, how-to guides, trainings, and such.

Eventually, however, the DSM will become increasingly irrelevant. It's already being superseded by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, which even on the APA's home turf of the United States is now required for insurance reimbursement. While some tout ICD codes as preferable, the only real advantage of the ICD is that it is freely available online.

By design, the DSM codes are almost precisely parallel to the ICD's. And the entire diagnostic enterprise, as psychotherapist Gary Greenberg explores in The Book of Woe, is an elaborate fiction -- a shell game perpetrated by psychiatrists on patients, insurance companies, and (most critically for our purposes here) the courts. Greenberg spent two years mucking about in the DSM-5 development trenches, where work group members frankly acknowledged that psychiatric diagnoses are just "fictive placeholders" or "useful constructs" rather than real conditions that carve nature at its joints.

Tomorrow, in Part II, I will highlight some specific changes (and non-changes) potentially relevant to forensic practice. 

If you are planning to attend the American Psychological Association convention in Honolulu, I also invite you to my full-day CE training on psychiatric diagnosis in legal settings on July 31.

How the Black man became schizophrenic

Psychiatry, the DSM, and the Black Power movement

Once upon a time, a strange thing happened at the Ionia State Hospital in Michigan: A diagnosis of schizophrenia exited the body of a white housewife, flew across the hospital, and landed on a young Black man from the housing projects of Detroit, burrowing into his body and stubbornly refusing to leave.

As you may know, Black men in the United States (as well as in the United Kingdom) are disproportionately diagnosed with schizophrenia. What you may not know is when this pattern emerged, or why.

Up until the 1950s, the overwhelming majority of those diagnosed with schizophrenia were white. They were the delicate or eccentric -- poets, academics, middle-class women like Alice Wilson in Jonathan Metzl's The Protest Psychosis, "driven to insanity by the dual pressures of housework and motherhood."

Then, in the mid-1960s, the Long Hot Summers hit urban America. Smoldering anger over racism and poverty erupted into mass rioting and harsh repression. In Detroit, a police raid on a party triggered an uprising that left 43 dead, 1,189 injured, and more than 7,000 arrested. Convinced that they would never win civil rights through sit-down strikes, a nascent Black Power movement became increasingly militant.

Coincidentally, just as this urban unrest was reaching its zenith, the American Psychiatric Association was busy revising its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Published in 1968, the DSM-II was touted as a more objective and scientific document than its 1952 predecessor.

"However, the DSM-II was far from the objective, universal text that its authors envisioned," writes Metzl, a psychiatry and women's studies professor and director of the Culture, Health and Medicine Program at the University of Michigan. "In unintentional and unexpected ways, the manual’s diagnostic criteria -- and the criteria for schizophrenia most centrally -- reflected the social tensions of 1960s America. A diagnostic text meant to shift focus away from the specifics of culture instead became inexorably intertwined with the cultural politics, and above all the race politics, of a particular nation and a particular moment in time."

The psychoanalytically imbued "schizophrenic reaction" of the DSM-I was an illness meriting pity and compassion rather than fear. In contrast, the DSM-II's more biologically oriented schizophrenia was menacing and required containment. In particular, the language that described the paranoid subtype foregrounded "masculinized hostility, violence, and aggression," implicitly pathologizing militant protest as mental illness.

Almost overnight, the previous class of schizophrenics at Ionia State Hospital was relabeled with depressive disorders. As the formerly schizophrenic exited the hospital en masse in the wake of the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, their places were taken by a new class of schizophrenics -- volatile young Black men from inner-city Detroit.

A mountain of archived charts from the defunct asylum at Ionia provided the raw material for The Protest Psychosis. In his four years of sifting through the treasure trove of data, Metzl found clear evidence of shifting racial and gender patterns in diagnosis. Because the DSM-II was published in the days before computers, clerk typists simply used hatch marks (/) to mark out the old diagnoses, leaving them clearly legible alongside the new.

Randomly selecting a subset of charts of white women patients, Metzl found schizophrenic diagnoses crossed out, and replaced with labels such as Depressive Neurosis or Involitional Melancholia.

In contrast, the charts of African American men saw Psychopathic Personality crossed out to make way for the DSM-II’s schizophrenia, paranoid type.

Neither set of patients had undergone a sudden metamorphosis. Their observable symptoms and behaviors, as documented by their chart notes, remained the same. The only thing that changed was the diagnostic manual.

Metzl is a lyrical writer who has thought deeply and profoundly about this topic. His asylum tragedy does not point fingers or blame the individual psychiatrists of the asylum. They, too, were victims of time and place, just doing their job. Doing it, indeed, by the book.

Lessons learned, or lessons lost?

The lessons of Ionia can be applied to almost any diagnostic saga. Today, the message -- if we choose to listen -- is especially profound. As Ethan Watters explores in Crazy Like Us, American psychiatry is sweeping the globe like a virus, importing PTSD to Sri Lanka and Western-style depression to Japan.

Big Pharma is responsible for much of this McDonald's-like expansion. The pharmaceutical industry is far and away the most profitable business in the United States, and accounts for almost half of the $650 billion-plus global market. In its quest to enlarge profits, this industry perpetually seeks to expand the range and scope of illness. As Christopher Lane describes in Shyness, this expansion is especially easy with psychiatric illnesses, because of their nebulous nature and subjective boundaries.

But Big Pharma did not revamp schizophrenia back in 1968. Nor were nefarious doctors consciously seeking to re-enslave a rebellious race. Like treatment providers today, psychiatrists undoubtedly saw themselves as helpers, even as they functioned as agents of social control, naturalizing today’s long-term containment and incapacitation of African American men.

Psychiatry, as Metzl points out, is inherently focused on the molecular. With their focus on matching individual symptoms to diagnostic codes, the psychiatrists who replaced one diagnosis with another were blind to how institutional racism shaped their choices. Nor did they reflect on their own internalization of the era’s cultural anxiety over menacing Black men, an anxiety that linked mental illness, protest, and criminality.

A focus on the micro-level blinds the actors to the larger forces at play, which construct the very frames governing observations and actions. Larger social and institutional forces rather than conscious intent on the part of individual actors typically drive bias, especially in the 21st century. This explains why “cultural competence” training programs are at best useless, and at worst reinforcing of stereotypes.

We are currently entering another period of diagnostic revision. What I find fascinating is how earnestly the proponents of new and expanded psychiatric diagnoses believe that they are agents of progress, advancing better science as opposed to ideologically driven agendas. Mesmerized by their own brilliance, they wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the larger cultural systems in which their ideas are embedded.

But science is never pure. There is no one objective truth. There are myriad ways to categorize and catalog. Bias is inherent in what is foregrounded and what, in turn, is neglected or ignored. Reification, in which hypothetical categories are transformed into tangible and real objects, keeps us from recognizing and naming the larger systems that dictate these choices.

Occasionally, a historian like Metzl comes along to sift through archival evidence and shine a spotlight on historical biases. But the biases inherent in the present moment remain largely invisible. With the arrogance inherent in power, privileged scientists have no need to confront their own cultural assumptions, or reflect upon how the world might look from the perspectives of their subjects.

Sadly for all of us, as the old axiom goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The book is: The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. An online essay adapted from the book is HERE. Metzl is also the author of Prozac on the Couch, Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs and editor of a book forthcoming from NYU Press, Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality. A University of Michigan press release about his published work on "medicalization" is HERE.

If you enjoyed this essay, please visit my abbreviated review at Amazon and click on "YES." This essay is also available at my Psychology Today blog, Witness and at AfroDaddy: A Black Man's Survival Guide (sadly, that site is now defunct, but the post is still available via the ever-amazing Wayback Machine).

Hebephilia struck by third blow

Down but not out?

It may be too soon to call it the death knell, but this week's ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts certainly dealt a reeling blow to the highly contested pseudo-diagnosis of hebephilia and its ever-more-marginalized adherents.

In the third of three back-to-back decisions in federal court, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said hebephilia just doesn't pass muster as a basis for civilly committing someone as a "sexually dangerous offender."

Hebephilia -- sexual attraction to adolescents -- certainly exists in nature, but the Government failed to meet is burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it amounted to "a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder" as required for civil commitment, wrote the judge. Simply put, "hebephilia is not generally recognized as a serious mental illness by the psychological and psychiatric communities."

The case involved Todd Carta, who was due to be released from federal prison after serving time for computer-based child pornography. Carta has a lengthy history of sex with underage males, ages 13 on up, and has acknowledged an attraction to adolescent boys.

The Government's expert, psychologist Amy Phenix, diagnosed Carta with "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Hebephilia," which she defined as a sexual preference for "young teens . . . 'till about age seventeen."

Phenix's position was countered by psychologist Leonard Bard, who testified that Carta had no diagnosable mental disorder. Bard identified numerous problems with the diagnosis of hebephilia, including its absence from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the prevalence of sexual attraction to adolescents among normal men.

The judge got it. In a thorough and well reasoned decision, he deconstructed the legal use of this nebulous diagnosis brick by brick. Perhaps most impressive was his clearly articulated understanding of the importance of adequate empirical research to support a diagnosis:

"Most importantly, the Government has failed to demonstrate that a diagnosis of hebephilia or paraphilia NOS: hebephilia is supported by research in the field of psychology…. Most of the articles put forward by the Government were published by coauthors Dr. Blanchard and Dr. Cantor. Dr. Bard criticized the work of Dr. Blanchard and Dr. Cantor, testifying that they are both on the editorial board of the journal that publishes their findings, which has at least the potential to damage the integrity of the peer-review process. Dr. Bard also criticized the research underlying their conclusions for failing to include a control group and for eliminating a large portion of the samples, among other problems. The five replies criticizing Dr. Blanchard's recent article proposing inclusion of hebephilia in the DSM-V suggest that Dr. Blanchard's work is not widely accepted. Dr. Bard testified that 'it’s the same group that is published over and over again trying to justify [a diagnosis of hebephilia], and they have failed.' "

The judge acknowledged that by ordering Carta's release he was not suggesting the convicted sex offender is a model citizen, but just drawing a line in the sand between criminality and mental disorder: Absent a widely recognized mental disorder it is Unconstitutional to "order indefinite commitment on the basis of the offensiveness of Respondent's conduct alone."

This is the third federal ruling in a row against hebephilia. The only other federal courts to address its use both rejected it as a basis for civil commitment. Those cases were U.S. v. Shields and U.S. v. Abregana, both decided last year.

Normally, this might be a "Three Strikes and You're Out" situation. Put the tired old construct to bed.

But fans are frantically trying to rehabilitate and rejuvenate hebephilia by getting it added to the next edition of the DSM (DSM-V). This would get around at least one of the many concerns expressed by Judge Tauro and others, over "the lack of any clear criteria" for making the diagnosis. Spearheading the DSM-V effort is Raymond Blanchard of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Canada, who not only sits on the editorial board of the journal that published his research (as Judge Tauro pointed out in his opinion), but also serves on the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group. From that influential position, he is lobbying for the addition of hebephilia or a newly minted term – pedohebephilic disorder (what a mouthful!) to the diagnostic bible.

With the DSM-V work groups stacked (see my related posts HERE), we may just have to wait and see. But in the meantime, All Hail to Massachusetts, for landing a solid blow against pseudoscience in the forensic arena.

Judge Tauro's decision is HERE. A list of articles on "Hebephilia and the DSM-V Controversy" is HERE; for more on hebephilia see my essay, "Invasion of the hebephile hunters: Or, the story of how an archaic word got a new lease on life."

Photo credit: Noel Kerns' "Closed," Creative Commons license (entrance to the defunct Mission Four Outdoor Theatre in San Antonio, Texas)

New Scientist expose of psychiatry’s "civil war"

Proposed diagnoses of hebephilia and paraphilias NOS critiqued

On Saturday, the world's leading science and technology news weekly is publishing a scathing expose of the political and financial shenanigans underlying the DSM-V revision process. Accompanying the report in the New Scientist is an editorial calling for a halt to the print version of the American Psychiatric Association's money-making diagnostic bible:

The final wording of the new manual will have worldwide significance. DSM is considered the bible of psychiatry, and if the APA broadens the diagnostic criteria for conditions such as schizophrenia and depression, millions more people could be placed on powerful drugs, some of which have serious side effects. Similarly, newly defined mental illnesses that deem certain individuals a danger to society could be used to justify locking these people up for life.

Given such high stakes, we should all be worried by the controversy. Proponents of some of the changes are being accused of running ahead of the science, and there are warnings that the APA is risking "disastrous unintended consequences" if it goes ahead with plans to publish DSM-V, as the new manual will be known, in 2012.

"Psychiatry’s civil war" is the title of the hard-hitting expose by award-winning science writer Peter Aldhous, San Francisco bureau chief for New Scientist magazine.

As Aldhous reports, professional disputes over the form and content of the upcoming edition "are getting ugly." He notes that respected Duke University scholar Jane Costello has resigned from the work group on childhood and adolescence disorders, citing a lack of scientific rigor across the whole DSM revision. "I felt that there was not enough empirical work being achieved or planned," she says.

In a sidebar, Aldhous shines a spotlight on controversial proposals of pivotal importance to forensic psychology, including the pseudoscientific diagnosis of "hebephilia" that I have previously blogged about:

You may have never heard of "hebephilia", but this obscure diagnosis has huge significance in the courts. If it becomes accepted it could lead to hundreds of sex offenders who have served their jail time being locked up indefinitely - on grounds that some say are spurious.

The proposed diagnosis has been condemned by critics as dangerously blurring the boundary between paedophilia and normal male attraction to teenage girls -- which isn't necessarily acted upon. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist in El Cerrito, California, argues that the diagnosis makes a disease out of preferences that have been shaped through human evolution. "People didn't used to live so long and mating started earlier," she says.

The work group is also considering whether some men are specifically turned on by rape -- a proposed condition termed paraphilic coercive disorder. Again, the evidence is based largely on measurements of penile blood flow in response to sexual images and stories, and the validity of the condition is hotly contested.

The rows over hebephilia and paraphilic coercive disorder aren't academic, because 20 US states have passed laws that allow sex offenders who have served their sentences to be detained indefinitely in a secure hospital if they are deemed "sexual predators." This can only be done if the offenders have a psychiatric disorder that increases their risk of reoffending -- which few do, according to DSM-IV.

Franklin says that if hebephilia and paraphilic coercive disorder make it into DSM-V, they will be seized upon to consign men to a lifetime of incarceration.

In a call to put the brakes on this speeding train, the New Scientist's accompanying editorial points out that this would hurt the coffers of the American Psychiatric Association, which has earned more than $40 million since 2000 from DSM sales. But, the editorial concludes, "it's hard to see who else stands to gain from the current exercise -- and if the critics' dire predictions come to pass, patients will be the biggest losers."

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

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

Hebephilia hopes hidey-hole will help it slip into DSM-5

Jean Broc: The Death of Hyacinthos

Hebephilia, the controversial faux disorder proposed for the upcoming DSM-5, has been repackaged in the hopes that no one will notice its presence. Unfortunately for its survival, two newly published journal articles may make it harder to hide.

The proposed label of "pedohebephilia” has been quietly discarded. Instead, hebephilia – defined as sexual attraction to young pubescents – has been buried in the text of revamped criteria for pedophilia. Presumably hoping it will go unnoticed, the web page authors do not mention the change.

The questionable diagnosis is the brainchild of a Canadian sex offender clinic with inordinate influence on the Sexual Disorders Workgroup of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 revision committee.

It is the last of three quacky sexual paraphilia proposals still standing. Overwhelming opposition derailed paraphilic coercive disorder (which would have turned rape into a mental disorder) and hypersexuality.

These victories notwithstanding, the developers of the DSM-5, due out in 2013, have been remarkably deaf to an ever-increasing roar of concern from allied professions in the United States and internationally. The revision process steamrollers on despite a mushrooming petition by a coalition of psychology organizations, a scathing critique by the British Psychological Society and, most recently, public statements of concern by the 154,000-member American Psychological Association and the 120,000-strong American Counseling Association. 

More costly and ineffective civil detentions

Following on the heels of my historical review of hebephilia in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law has just published two new critiques.

In an article focusing on the legal ramifications, forensic psychologist and attorney John Fabian warns that the primary result of adding this scientifically unproven diagnosis to the DSM-5 will be an increase in civil commitments of sex offenders.

Fabian outlines the inconsistent federal case interpretations of hebephilia, including the only federal court of appeals ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District in the case of Todd Carta (the case I led off with in my review):

The court in Carta focused on the offender's behavior as causing him distress, impairment, and dysfunction in his life. However, the question of whether hebephilia is a type of paraphilia NOS, depends on whether it is considered deviant and abnormal to have a sexual attraction and to engage in subsequent sexual behaviors toward pubescent adolescents and postpubescent minors. To this date, neither the case law nor clinical research on sex offenders has clearly supported classifying hebephilia as an abnormal pathology.

As we can see through this psycholegal analysis, both clinicians and the courts disagree as to whether hebephilia is a pathological sexual deviance disorder. Given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in hearing McGee, Michael L. v. Bartow, Dir., WI Resource Center, addressing whether a rape paraphilia NOS, nonconsent, meets the constitutional threshold for legal mental abnormality for civil commitment, it is unlikely that the Court will hear such a case addressing hebephilia. More likely, the DSM-5 will provide guidance for clinicians, attorneys, and judges who evaluate and litigate this issue in civil commitment proceedings.

Focus on clinical impairment

In a commentary on Fabian's article, sex offender researchers Robert Prentky and Howard Barbaree try to take a middle road in the contentious debate. At the outset, they acknowledge the questionable nature of diagnosing a condition that is hard-wired in heterosexual men:

Brooke Shields was only 12 years old when she played a child prostitute in Pretty Baby, three years before she modeled Calvin Klein jeans, asking, "Want to know what gets between me and my Calvin's? Nothing." Klein's young teenage models were so provocative that the Justice Department investigated whether the ads violated federal child pornography and child exploitation laws. Penelope Cruz was only 13 years old when she played a child prostitute in the French soap opera Série Rose. Jodie Foster was 14 years old when she played a child prostitute in Taxi Driver. The model Maddison Gabriel, the official "face" of Australia's Gold Coast Fashion Week in 2007, was only 12 years old. Highly sexualized young girls would not be used in advertising, in movies, and on catwalks unless a great many adult males were paying close attention. It appears that heterosexual human males are hard wired to respond sexually to young females with secondary sexual characteristics.

But, they continue, men with an "exclusive sexual preference for young teenagers" (if such men can be found) may indeed be sufficiently impaired so as to meet the mental disorder requirement of "clinically significant deficits in social and interpersonal skills."

This was the approach taken by the appellate court in upholding the civil commitment of Todd Carta, and it is a tactic being used by government experts in sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. In a circular rationale, once the pseudo-diagnosis of “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified-Hebephilia” is assigned, clinically significant impairment can be inferred from the mere fact of an arrest and criminal prosecution.

To their credit, Prentky and Barbaree do admit that the research base for hebephilia is insufficient at the present time:

The bright line in the sand should be the clinical and empirical integrity of the proposed diagnosis…. Examined in isolation, there does not appear to be adequate empirical evidence that sexual arousal in response to young adolescents constitutes a paraphilia…. Clearly, this is an area that warrants further research.

Let's just hope the DSM-5 gods tune in to the controversy in time to pull the plug on yet another half-baked idea that will only bring further embarrassment to the profession.

Both articles are freely available online:

• John Fabian: Diagnosing and Litigating Hebephilia in Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Proceedings

• Robert Prentky and Howard Barbaree: Commentary: Hebephilia—A Would-be Paraphilia Caught in the Twilight Zone Between Prepubescence and Adulthood

The DSM-5 petition, spearheaded by the Society for Humanistic Psychology, is HERE.

"Invasion of the Hebephile Hunters," my oldie but goodie from 2007 (before all this hoopla got started), is HERE.

Linguist lambasts DSM-5 proposal as gibberish

Leave it to an asexual linguist to lay bare the convoluted nature of the paraphilia diagnoses being proposed for the DSM-5. Andrew Hinderliter, a former English teacher and grad student at the University of Illinois, says his activism regarding the DSM's Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder led him to stumble across disturbing global flaws in the DSM-5 sexual disorders morass.

The wording of the proposed new definition of "paraphilia" (sexual perversion) is so nonsensical that one must ignore the literal text in order to apply it the way the authors say they intend, Hinderliter writes in his new article, "Do Not Disregard Grammar," in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. That article follows a companion piece published in the Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology.

As I have blogged about previously, the members of the sexual disorders workgroup for the DSM-5 seems oblivious to the potentially disastrous forensic implications of their proposals. Vague and careless wording is not so critical in the clinical arena where, presumably, everyone is working toward the same goals. However, as attorneys know well, in the forensic context every little word matters -- a lot.

"Given that a person can be deprived of procedural due process rights -- possibly for the rest of their life --on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful wording in defining paraphilia in DSM-5 is all the more important,” Hinderliter cautions.

Perhaps the workgroup has the clandestine aim of introducing chaos into the civil commitment system for sex offenders. If so, it couldn't be doing a better job. Get ready for skirmish after skirmish over nebulous terms such as "phenotypically normal," "generalized" and "intense."

Emboldened DSM-5 critics issue public challenge

In October, I reported on the Society for Humanistic Psychology's online petition urging the American Psychiatric Association to reconsider the mental illness expansions and biomedical emphasis proposed for its new diagnostic manual, due out in 2013.

Since then, the effort has taken off like wildfire. More than 10,000 people have signed the petition, and the fledgling Coalition for DSM-5 Reform has mushroomed to include 41 concerned mental health organizations in the United States, Britain and Denmark.

Now, the Coalition has posted an open letter calling upon the developers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to submit controversial proposals in the DSM-5 to an independent group of scientists and scholars with no ties to either the DSM-5 Task Force or the American Psychiatric Association for an independent, external review.

"We respectfully ask that you not respond again with assurances about internal reviews and field trials because such assurances, at this point, are not sufficient," says the letter. "We believe an external, independent review is critical in terms of ensuring the proposed DSM-5 is safe and credible."

As the critics gain ground and the battle heats up, it will be very interesting to see how the beleaguered DSM-5 Task Force responds.

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.

Scientist razes proposed "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder"

Pedohebephilia. Hypersexuality. Coercive Paraphilic Disorder. How many new sexual disorders can fit into the DSM-V, the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic manual scheduled for publication in 2012?

Government evaluators in Sexually Violent Predator cases must be thrilled with the possibilities being generated by the prolific paraphilias subworkgroup of the DSM-V Sexual Disorders Workgroup. If these proposed diagnoses make it into the psychiatric bible, the task of establishing that sex offenders have bona fide mental disorders meriting hospitalization will suddenly get a whole lot easier.

But this will only happen if good science is not allowed to interfere with pragmatism and pretextuality. After all, the empirical support for some of these pseudoscientific categories is weak at best.

Now issuing a strong call of alarm is perhaps the premiere scientific researcher into the etiology of rape, Raymond Knight, the Mortimer Gryzmish Professor of Human Relations at Brandeis University.

In a forthcoming article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the respected scholar cautions against adoption of Coercive Paraphilic Disorder, which he says is not supported by empirical data and has a vast potential for misuse by the civil commitment industry.

Currently, the propensity to rape is not considered a mental illness. Proponents of adding a rapist diagnosis to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) claim it was only excluded the last time around due to pesky feminists' objections that it would excuse rapists from criminal consequences. However, that turns out to be something of a myth. The main reason it was excluded, says psychologist and lawyer Thomas Zander, who conducted primary research into the history, was because it was not scientifically supportable. And, according to Knight's article, it is even less supportable now than it was back then.

The fact that rape propensity is not a bona fide mental illness has proved a hurdle for the civil commitment industry. To be hospitalized on the basis of possible future dangerousness, sex offenders must be found to suffer from a mental disorder that reduces their volitional control. To get around this legal barrier against unconstitutional preventive detention, government evaluators have taken to assigning a de facto label of "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified - Nonconsent."

As Knight points out, if Coercive Paraphilic Disorder is introduced into the DSM-V, it will provide tacit support for the legitimacy of the bogus "NOS" diagnosis. This, he says, would be a travesty:

"The inclusion of PCD [Paraphilic Coercive Disorder] would inappropriately legitimize this 'disorder' and grant it the imprimatur of the DSM, which is almost universally cited by expert witnesses in civil commitment proceedings…. The diagnosis has little empirical support, and it would be a travesty to grant it a status that would perpetuate its misuse."

In his article, Knight discusses the evidence from a long line of research that suggests there is not a separate category of men with a propensity to rape. Rather than being a distinct "taxon," rape propensity exists along a continuum.

He also challenges the contention of a Canadian research group that rapists are sexually aroused by the coercive aspects of sexual assault. A more likely scientific explanation for why some men rape is that the coercive elements of the situation fail to inhibit their sexual arousal, he writes.

This dimensional model coincides with a large body of sociological and anthropological research, which suggests that men in certain environments -- most notably wars -- are much more likely to commit rape. Indeed, research has found that even on the same college campus, some fraternity environments promote a "rape culture" among men, whereas others do not. (I discuss this environmental aspect of rape in an article I wrote a few years back on the theatrical elements of group rape.)

Knight's scientifically grounded critique is a refreshing change from the pseudoscientific tenor of many of the DSM diagnostic proposals. More scientific rebuttals to some of the shaky studies in the sex offender field are currently in press, and I will try to stay attuned and alert you readers as soon as they become publicly available.

Further resources:

Knight, Raymond. (2009). Is a diagnostic category for Paraphilic Coercive Disorder defensible? Archives of Sexual Behavior. This article is online, but requires a subscription. The abstract is visible HERE, along with the email address of the author (from whom copies may be requested).

Zander, T. K. (2008). Commentary: Inventing Diagnosis for Civil Commitment of Rapists. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law , 36, 459-469.

Zander, T.K. (2005). Civil Commitment Without Psychosis: The Law’s Reliance on the Weakest Links in Psychodiagnosis. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, pp.17-82.

Franklin, Karen. (2004). Enacting Masculinity: Antigay Violence and Group Rape as Participatory Theater. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1 (2), pp. 25–40.

Brits: American psychiatry needs new theoretical frame

Ever since the American Psychiatric Association launched its multi-million dollar diagnostic industry with the publication of the DSM-III in 1980, the approach to successive editions has been to tinker, fiddle, and tweak: Change a diagnostic threshold here; reword a criterion there; remove an outdated label and add two or three more in its place.

Meanwhile, the underlying structure is so shoddy and out of touch with reality that the best thing to do would be to tear the whole thing down and start over. That's the message of the British Psychological Society, the UK’s 50,000-member professional body for psychologists, responding to the latest draft of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The APA had invited the Society to comment on the DSM-5, currently due out in 2013.

The Society is concerned that clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation…. The putative diagnoses presented in DSM-5 are clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements, with little confirmatory physical 'signs' or evidence of biological causation. The criteria are not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations.

The Society critiqued a range of proposed changes in the DSM, including major changes to the personality disorders as well as (of particular relevance to forensic practitioners) the sexual paraphilias. Particular concern was expressed over a proposed "attenuated psychosis syndrome." This proposal is "very worrying" to the British psychologists, as it will "stigmatize eccentric people" and lower the threshold for prescribing potentially harmful antipsychotic medications.

More broadly, the Society commented, the DSM diagnostic system's limited focus leads practitioners to ignore the relational and environmental contexts for psychological problems:

The Society recommends a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly evidenced causal factors.

Retreat from diagnostic labeling urged

Rather than "applying preordained diagnostic categories," the Society recommends cataloging specific symptoms or complaints, such as "hearing voices" or "feelings of anxiety."

Statistical analyses of problems from community samples show that they do not map onto past or current categories…. While some people find a name or a diagnostic label helpful, our contention is that this helpfulness results from a knowledge that their problems are recognized, … understood, validated, explained (and explicable) and have some relief. Clients often, unfortunately, find that diagnosis offers only a spurious promise of such benefits. Since – for example – two people with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia' or 'personality disorder' may possess no two symptoms in common, it is difficult to see what communicative benefit is served.... We believe that a description of a person’s real problems would suffice…. There is ample evidence from psychological therapies that case formulations (whether from a single theoretical perspective or more integrative) are entirely possible to communicate to staff or clients. We therefore believe that alternatives to diagnostic frameworks exist, should be preferred, and should be developed with as much investment of resource and effort as has been expended on revising DSM-IV.

The 26-page statement is available HERE.