Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. (2005) Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen.

Horwitz, A.V. (2007) Transforming normality into pathology: The DSM and the outcomes of stressful social arrangements. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 48, 211-222. It is too late to abandon terms like depression, anxiety, distortion of reality, antisocial or histrionic behaviour. However, we can replace discrete categories with evidence-based cut-offs along various dimensions, recognising that these things usually exist as a matter of degree (Jarrett, 2009). In the medical world, this is already done with things like blood pressure, cholesterol and obesity – we accept that people vary continuously and there comes a point where treatment is indicated. It is a promising sign that some in the APA working party are urging a change in this direction for the DSM-5.

Rory Pilgrim – interview: ‘I hope the work I create is like a permaculture – always living’

The idea of sexual addiction (to become Hypersexuality in DSM-5?) emanates from feminist demands that men stop philandering. Paradoxically, this medical-sounding condition is sometimes embraced by men seeking to deny responsibility for their bad behaviour, the message being “I can’t help myself”. However, evolutionary psychologists have shown that it is natural for men to pursue multiple partners and sexual addiction seems to be nothing more than high sex drive (Winters et al, 2010). Of course, libido may be so strong as to become inconvenient (threatening marital stability or leading to charges of rape/harassment) in which case some sort of self-control therapy may be appropriate. However, therapy must be in the best interests of the client – not others who might want them restrained. Following the medical model, clinicians have to say whether an individual should have the label attached to them as a “yes-no” decision based on certain specified criteria. Babiak, P. & Hare, R.D (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York: Harper & Collins.

If a psychopath is involved in criminal behaviour, whose responsibility is it – mental health services or the courts? The usual answer is that since psychopathy cannot be treated effectively then it is a matter for the judiciary. Treatments are available for psychopathy but, in any case, it should not matter too much because the real issue is one ofdangerousness. If an individual represents a continuing danger to the public then secure containment is necessary, regardless of whether they are mad or bad. Various forms of treatment/rehabilitation can be attempted but it may turn out that they need indefinite incarceration. Bartlett, A. et al (2009) The response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change or redirect same-sex sexual orientation. BMC Psychiatry, online 29/3/09.Last week a celebrity chef was caught shoplifting from his local supermarket. He expressed great regret and cited overwork, stress, and sexual abuse in childhood. However, he was still baffled about the reasons for his behaviour and announced that he would immediately seek therapy. Was he slightly mad, slightly sad, slightly bad – or perhaps a bit of all three? What once seemed simple has become one of the issues of our day. Millon, T. (2008) The Millon Inventories: A practitioners’ guide to personalised clinical assessment. Guilford Press. It seems to me we are confused about what prison is for – punishment, retribution, deterrent, rehabilitation, or just protection of the public. I believe prison should be used only for the last of these. If the punitive aspect is removed from secure facilities, then the distinction between health and penal institutions becomes academic and they can be equally humane. Punishment doesn’t usually work with psychopaths anyway because they are not responsive to fear of consequences. For others who might be deterred by the threat of punishment, there are other possible penalties – heavy fines for fraudsters, community service for juvenile delinquents, etc. Unfortunately, we crowd our prisons with people who have offended but are not criminal personalities (e.g., motorists who have fallen asleep at the wheel) while giving bail to others from whom the public deserves protection (e.g., career burglars). How did the mind doctors of the 1900s view their female patients? What did they make of their variously diagnosed nerves, melancholy, mania, obsession, self-mutilation, tics, possession, hysteria, desire and rebellion? Why in the early 20 th century was psychoanalysis liberating for so many female authors and artists? Does gender determine the way we express or are allowed to express mental distress? Some of the questions explored in Mad, Bad and Sad. Through intimate and revealing portraits, shown alongside original historical documents, the exhibition traces key moments in the history of ‘female maladies’ and counterpoints them with women’s boldly inventive art today.