See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/41000727

Chemical castration for sex offenders

Article  in  BMJ (online) · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

23 1,989

2 authors, including:

Anthony Beech
University of Birmingham
303 PUBLICATIONS   8,598 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

handbook of forensic neuroscience View project

assessing current sexual interest View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony Beech on 07 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Search all BMJ Products

Search bmj.com
Advanced search

Published 12 January 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c74

Editorials
Chemical castration for sex offenders
Doctors should avoid becoming agents of social control

In November 2009, in response to several high profile sex offences committed against children, Polish President Lech
Kaczynski signed a law allowing for the compulsory treatment of some sex offenders with antiandrogenic drugs, commonly
referred to as chemical castration. Following a sexual killing carried out by a repeat sex offender in France, the French
National Assembly is considering legislation that would make chemical castration mandatory for some sex offenders.
Laws in several American states allow compulsory medical treatment of offenders who have committed serious sex
offences. Chemical, as well as physical, castration of sex offenders takes place in psychiatric hospitals in the Czech
Republic under the legal framework of "protective treatment." Meanwhile, in England the Department of Health is
supporting an initiative to facilitate the prescription of drugs on a voluntary basis for sex offenders in the criminal justice
system.1

Demand for the prescription of antiandrogens or physical castration for sex offenders is a common reaction by lawmakers
and politicians when a high profile sexual crime is committed. Although castration is ostensibly for public protection, it also
carries with it a sense of symbolic retribution. Whether medical or surgical, the procedure requires the participation of
doctors, and this gives rise to questions regarding the basis of medical involvement. Some people argue that not only
does medical input in these cases straddle the border between treatment and punishment,2 but that it also shifts the
doctor’s focus from the best interests of the patient to one of public safety.

Antiandrogenic drugs and physical castration undoubtedly reduce sexual interest (libido) and sexual performance,3 and
they reduce sexual reoffending. Physical castration of sex offenders was carried out in several European countries in the
first part of the 20th century, and although morally dubious and not always targeted at high risk cases (many of those
castrated were homosexual, mentally ill, or learning disabled), recidivism rates of less than 5% over long follow-up periods
are invariably reported, compared with expected rates of 50% or more.4

Studies of the use of antiandrogenic drugs report similar efficacy,5 6 7 and a large meta-analysis of treatment in sex
offenders found that "organic" interventions (surgical castration and hormones) reduce recidivism much more than any
other treatment approach (although the authors found that nowadays drugs are usually used alongside psychological
treatment).8 Double blind placebo controlled studies of antiandrogens are virtually absent because of the practical
difficulties of carrying them out (among other things, it is not easy to convince an ethics committee of the wisdom of giving
placebo to dangerous offenders), but the evidence supports the efficacy of these treatments.

It is not surprising that antiandrogens have such a big effect on the risk of sexual offences. Regardless of the strong
psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending, at its root lies the pressure exerted by sexual drive and sexual
arousal, mediated by biological mechanisms dependent on testosterone. The main drugs used are cyproterone acetate (in
the United Kingdom, Europe, and Canada); medroxyprogesterone (in the United States); and increasingly the more
expensive but possibly more potent gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonists such as leuprolide, goserelin, and
tryptorelin.9 10 Although these drugs act in different ways, they all reduce serum testosterone concentrations in men to
prepubertal values. Castration, however—whether chemical or physical—is associated with serious side effects, including
osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic abnormalities, and gynaecomastia. Physical castration is mutilating and

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan12_2/c74?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESU... 09/02/2010
Chemical castration for sex offenders -- Grubin and Beech 340: c74 -- BMJ Page 2 of 3

irreversible, and it carries the potential for serious psychological disturbance, although some offenders request it
nonetheless.11

Given the risk to the individual’s health, is there a clear medical rather than social reason for prescribing powerful drugs,
let alone carrying out such a drastic surgical procedure? Part of the problem lies in the poor diagnostic conceptualisation
of the sexual deviations, with DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text
revision) and ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) definitions dominated by notions of the
unconventional nature of the drive, rather than its psychological or physical characteristics. When the intensity or ability to
control sexual arousal is the presenting feature—whether it manifests as frequent rumination and fantasy or strong and
recurrent urges—then treatment directed towards the biological drive makes sense. Treatment protocols can then be
based on the medical indication (remembering that drugs other than the antiandrogens, such as selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors, can also be effective, particularly when sexual rumination is the presenting problem12) rather than on
risk.

When drugs work the clinical effect is often dramatic, with offenders reporting great benefit from no longer being
preoccupied by sexual thoughts or dominated by sexual drive. These drugs can also allow offenders to participate in
psychological treatment programmes where previously they may have been too distracted to take part. Given the
transparency of benefits and risks, there is no obvious reason why an offender should not be able to make an informed
choice about drugs. Some argue that freedom of choice is lost in instances where long term detention is the only
alternative to drugs,2 but it is not clear why this should not be part of the person’s calculation. Indeed, preventing this
choice may condemn men to years of further imprisonment.

Overall, it probably makes most sense for medical treatment to be viewed as part of a wider package of care and
supervision, dependent on the individual’s consent but with no decisions wholly dependent on compliance. In this context,
the doctor does not assume responsibility for public safety but contributes to it by helping the offender to tackle those
factors that make him more likely to reoffend.6 Physical castration as part of a rehabilitative strategy may even have a
place, although the observations of the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture
(www.cpt.coe.int/documents/cze/2009-08-inf-eng.pdf) should not be overlooked given the significant risk of human rights
abuses, with individuals acquiescing rather than consenting in the belief that it is the only way to avoid indefinite
confinement.

Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c74

Don Grubin, professor of forensic psychiatry1, Anthony Beech, professor in criminological psychology2
1St Nicholas Hospital, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3XT, 2 School of Psychology, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT

[email protected]

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf
(available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: (1) No financial support for the submitted work from
anyone other than their employer; (2) No financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the
submitted work; (3) No spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an
interest in the submitted work; (4) No non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

1. National Probation Service. Probation circular 35: medical treatment for sex offenders. 2007.
www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/PC35%202007.pdf.
2. Harrison K. Legal and ethical issues when using antiandrogenic pharmacotherapy with sex
offenders. Sexual Offender Treatment 2008;3. www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/2-
2008_01.html.
3. Bancroft JHJ. Human sexuality and its problems. 3rd ed. Churchill Livingstone, 2009.
4. Heim N, Hursch CJ. Castration for sex offenders. Treatment or punishment? A review and
critique of recent European literature. Arch Sex Behav 1979;8:281-304.[CrossRef][Web of
Science][Medline][OpenURL]
5. Prentky RA. Arousal reduction in sexual offenders: a review of antiandrogen interventions. Sex
Abuse 1997;9:335-47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Grubin D. Medical models and interventions in sexual deviance. In: Laws DR, O’Donohue WT,

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan12_2/c74?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESU... 09/02/2010
 Chemical castration for sex offenders -- Grubin and Beech 340: c74 -- BMJ Page 3 of 3

eds. Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment. 2nd ed. Guildford Press, 2008:594-
610.
7. Maletzky B, Tolan A, McFarland B. The Oregon depo-provera program: a five-year follow-up.
Sex Abuse 2006;18:303-16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Lösel F, Schmucker M. The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive
meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol 2005;1:1-29.[CrossRef][OpenURL]
9. Rösler A, Witzum E. Pharmacotherapy of the paraphilias in the next millennium. Behav Sci Law
2000;18:43-56.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][OpenURL]
10. Briken P, Hill A, Berner W. Pharmacotherapy of paraphilias with long-acting agonists of
luteinising hormone-releasing hormone: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry 2003;64:890-7.
[Web of Science][Medline][OpenURL]
11. Alexander M. Should a sexual offender be allowed castration? Ethical considerations in using
orchidectomy for social control. BMJ 1993;307:790-4.[Free Full Text]
12. Kafka MP. The monoamine hypothesis for the pathophysiology of paraphilic disorders: an
update. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;989:86-94.[Web of Science][Medline][OpenURL]

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter

Relevant Article
Controversies in treatment: Should a sexual offender be allowed castration?
M Alexander, J Gunn, D A Cook, P J Taylor, and J Finch
BMJ 1993 307: 790-793. [PDF]

Contact us - Privacy policy - Web site terms & conditions - Revenue sources - Site map
HighWire Press - Feedback - Help - © 2010 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan12_2/c74?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESU... 09/02/2010
View publication stats