Full Text (PDF) Correction Correction (v165,p1495) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by First, M. B. Articles by Frances, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by First, M. B. Articles by Frances, A. Other Forensic Issues Sexual Disorders DSM

Issues for DSM-V: Unintended Consequences of Small Changes: The Case of Paraphilias

Although DSM-IV-TR includes many close judgment calls, it contains only one outright mistake: in criterion A of the paraphilia section. The unintended consequences following what we thought was a small wording change provide a cautionary tale for DSM-V. The mistake arose from the decision to add the following criterion to most disorders in DSM-IV: "the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." This was a reminder that the symptom criteria alone are insufficient to define mental disorder (1). In the paraphilia section, the new wording replaced DSM-III-R criterion B, which had set the significance threshold based on either acting on the urges or experiencing distress (see Table 1 for pedophilia criteria). Furthermore, criterion A was amended (by adding "behavior" along with "fantasies" and "urges") to emphasize that it is behavior that most typically brings individuals to clinical attention.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1

The reworded definition resulted in two unanticipated problems. First, conservative religious groups mistakenly worried that the change meant DSM-IV did not recognize pedophilia as a mental disorder unless it caused distress (2–4). To eliminate this misinterpretation, the original DSM-III-R criterion B was reinstated in DSM-IV-TR for those paraphilias involving nonconsenting victims (i.e., pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, frotteurism, and sexual sadism) (5).

The minor adjustment in criterion A caused more serious problems. The addition of "or behaviors" led some forensic evaluators to conclude that sexual offenders might qualify as having a mental disorder based only on their having committed sexual offenses (e.g., rape). In many states with sexually violent predator statutes, the diagnosis of mental disorder is necessary to trigger indefinite civil psychiatric commitment for sexually violent offenders after their prison terms are completed. The constitutionality of these statutes hinges on the requirement that the sexual offenses are caused by a "mental abnormality." Although the mental abnormality mentioned in the statutes is defined by state legislature and is not equivalent to any DSM disorder, the courts have acknowledged the importance of DSM diagnoses in the determination of whether the statutorily defined mental health criteria are satisfied (6). The revised criterion A wording has sometimes been used to justify making a paraphilia diagnosis based solely on a history of repeated acts of sexual violence, which is then argued as satisfying the statutory mandate for the presence of a "mental abnormality" (7, 8). This certainly was never our intent in DSM-IV. Defining paraphilia based on acts alone blurs the distinction between mental disorder and ordinary criminality. Decisions regarding possible lifelong psychiatric commitment should not be made based on a misreading of a poorly worded DSM-IV criterion item.

We regret the confusion caused and have two recommendations: 1) although the contentious issue of sexually violent predator commitment cannot be resolved by a simple DSM wording change, we feel it is important to set the record straight and restore criterion A to its DSM-III-R wording (i.e., remove the phrase "or behaviors") in DSM-V (if not sooner); 2) tinkering with criteria wording should be done only with great care and when the advantages clearly outweigh the risks, both because of the potentially unforeseen consequences of rewording criteria and because of the disruptive nature of all changes.

Footnotes

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. First, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Dr., Unit 60, New York, NY 10032; mbf2{at}columbia.edu (e-mail). Editorial accepted for publication April 2008 (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08030361).

Supported by grants from the National Institute of Aging (ROI-AG-183, 75P30-AG02874) and from the NIMH (ROI-MH-55253, T32-M32-MH18399), UCLA Friends of the Semel Institute, UCLA Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, UCLA Claude Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, and Cooperative.

Dr. First has received funds from Roche, Corcept, Wyeth, Cephalon, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Frances reports no competing interests. Dr. Freedman has reviewed this editorial and found no evidence of influence from these relationships.

Editorials discussing other DSM-V issues can be submitted to the Journal at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/appi-ajp. Submissions should not exceed 500 words.

References

TOP References

 

1. Frances A: Problems in defining clinical significance in epidemiological studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55:119[Free Full Text]
2. Medinger A: American Psychiatric Association decides pedophilia is no longer a disorder. Exodus Global Alliance, http://exodus.to/content/view/181/56
3. Medinger A: DSM-IV and Pedophilia: What did the APA do? Exodus International, http://exodus.to/content/view/182/56
4. Bowles L: Pedophilia: good news, bad news. WorldNetDaily, http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=12961
5. First M, Pincus H: The DSM-IV text revision: rationale and potential impact on clinical practice. Psychiatr Serv 2002; 53:288–292[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Zander T: Civil commitment without psychosis: the law’s reliance on the weakest links in psychodiagnosis. J Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law 2005; 1:17–82
7. First M, Halon R: Use of DSM paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator commitment cases. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law (in press)
8. Frances A, Sreenivasan S, Weinberger LE: Defining Mental Disorder When It Really Counts—DSM-IV-TR and SVP/SDP Statutes. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law (in press)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. B. First and R. L. Halon Use of DSM Paraphilia Diagnoses in Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Cases J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2008; 36(4): 443 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Full Text (PDF) Correction Correction (v165,p1495) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by First, M. B. Articles by Frances, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by First, M. B. Articles by Frances, A. Other Forensic Issues Sexual Disorders DSM

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2008 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us