Personality Disorders

In his column today, George Will argues against the therapeutic society, suggesting that the DSM-IV, about to be revised, “may aggravate the confusion of moral categories.”  For example:  “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.’”

By and large, I agree with his overall argument.  However, after having adopted two older, special needs kids ten years ago, I also know that there is such as thing a personality disorders.  It is an endless source of frustration to try and talk to anyone about the trials and difficulties of raising a child with attachment disorder or borderline personality disorder.  The basic response one gets is “Oh, A normal teenager.”

If only.  I also have three biological children, all different, all typical, all currently teens as well.  There is no way to really describe the differences without disclosing private information one rarely shares.  Knowing George Will has a son with Down’s Syndrome, I am surprised—though much less than I would have been years ago—that he seems so unopened to the distinctions.

I have fought for years, advocated and suffered, trying to keep the psychological profession from doping my kids up to control them.  I have seen how social workers, teachers, psychologist and psychiatrist all leap to conclusions with little data, aren’t interested in the knowledge that only parents can provide, and seek to jump to the easy DSM-IV diagnosis.  It makes getting insurance payments much easier, after all.

But still…well, I guess you’d have to live it.  ODD is real, and it’s not teenage rebellion.  It’s like calling suicidal tendencies the blues.

Capture or Kill, War or Crime

In a “Washington Post” story today it was reported that under President Obama there are more targeted killings than captures in counter-terrorism efforts.  Senator Bond (R, Mo) says: “Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused.”

I’m confused too.  If terrorism is going to be treated by this administration as a crime rather than an act of war, and if those captured are going to be treated as criminals rather than enemy combatants, then isn’t it a crime, the crime of murder, to just kill them without a trial?  Let me get this straight.  We kill them so that we don’t have to worry about Mirandizing them and finding a place to hold a trial if we capture them?

How long can we maintain this kind of cognitive dissonance?  If the Left wants to try G.W. Bush for war crimes, does that mean we would try President Obama for murder?