So, I seem to get discredited twice by Dr Frances, once for treating people within the civil commitment context, and another for being an “idiosyncratic evaluator”-a resistant member of a “hard corps of stubborn dead-enders” that is “mistaken and incompetent” by exercising “independent clinical judgment of any given case.” It seems the real grievance Dr Frances has is not that evaluators are “ignorant” or “incompetent,” but that we are not sufficiently deferential to him. This is the same DMH Dr Frances lauds as “rescuing proper diagnostic practice” and “redeeming forensic psychology.” Paradoxically, he also notes it as an agency providing “unjustified psychiatric hospitalization of simple criminals.” For myself, I worked for several years for the California DMH program that treats men committed as SVPs. The “idiosyncratic evaluators” here in California, to whom Dr Frances refers, are extensively trained professionals who have many of experience in the area of severe sexual abuse. They blithely write reports filled with idiosyncratic and incorrect diagnostic opinions that can result in the unjustified psychiatric hospitalization of simple criminals who have already served their apportioned prison terms. How disturbing then that some SVP evaluators remain ignorant of DSM-IV, leading them to provide supposedly “expert” testimony that is simply incompetent. However, there is a feature of humans possessed that contributes to a splitting-off that leads to thinking that some other group of persons-“them”-has no resemblance to the rest of “us.” Unfortunately, in this case, I am in Dr Frances’ ousted “them” group.Īt this point, I hope readers will infer the point that our endeavors to diagnose illness in this particular domain engender an “us versus them” attitude, which ultimately fuels diagnostic and Sex Offender Civil Commitment debates, but does not serve our collective goal, our vocation, of healing. We, sexual offenders included, all share the most fundamental of human qualities. We put ourselves on the front line of a psychic battlefield every day to help men convicted of sexual crimes. After all, my colleagues and I who work conducting SVP evaluations are professionals, just like those that treat the less than one percent of these men eventually committed as SVPs in California, as well as the researchers and academics that join us in a shared goal of helping alleviate the societal problem of sexual abuse. But, it is another thing entirely to embark on a veritable witchhunt against people and ideas. It is one thing to have an opinion and state it. It is out of this internal imperative that I seek to clarify Dr Frances’ distorted interpretations. So, why am I getting involved in this “mess”? There is a vocation in the work that we do as professionals that necessitates a response. My experience of the meeting is vastly discrepant from that which Dr Frances portrays. On the other hand, having read Dr Frances’ most recent piece involving his interpretation of the recent training for California evaluators-which I attended-I cannot dismiss my experience. On the one hand, I ask myself, “Why ever would you want to get involved in this mess?” Surely, rationality is not a key player in this arena, why attempt to bring some to the forefront? Anything I might have to offer will likely be twisted and misused as fuel for the cauldron. The sharp realization of this latter point brings me to the uncomfortable position of writing this post. His published works on the topics swarm with passion, allure by acrimony and, in my opinion, are built on a rational foundation of sand. In reading Dr Frances’ posts about Paraphilia diagnosis, DSM-5, and SOCC laws, I get the notion that he is a man deeply possessed-possessed by the idea of doing whatever it takes to undermine all three. 1ĭr Frances is a frequent commentator on issues related to Paraphilia diagnosis, DSM-5, and sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC). This could be a turning point in solving what has been the most vexing problem at the delicate interface between psychiatry and the law. The California Department of Mental Health (DMH) conducted a 3-day workshop to educate its evaluators on proper procedures in diagnosing DSM-IV mental disorders. 2 Dr Frances’ article commences:īy far the most important event in the sad history of the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statutes occurred in Sacramento between September 9 and September 11, 2011. Readers interested in learning more about the California SVP statute are referred to the California Coalition On Sexual Offending information paper referenced at the end of this article. In a recent article written in the Psychiatric Times 1 entitled California DMH Instructs SVP Evaluators on Proper DSM-IV-TR Diagnosis, 1 DSM-IV editor Dr Allen Frances reviewed a training session offered to California state evaluators conducting evaluations of potential sexually violent predators (SVPs).
0 kommentar(er)
