title: Commentary: Zoophilia and the law.
abstract: We support the observation of Holoyda and Newman that common definitions of zoophilia are confusing and that legal definitions of bestiality and sentencing implications are inconsistent. We take issue with their contention that the finding of a history of sex with animals may be a significant risk factor for future harm to humans. We oppose their recommendation for new laws against bestiality to improve psychiatric knowledge about zoophilia. Instead, we advocate for better diagnostic criteria than are provided by the DSM-5, together with the provision of treatment to promote healthful sexual interests and activities by humans and the safety of animals. We believe this is best accomplished by not treating sexual interactions with animals simply as risk factors. Instead they should be assessed as signs of zoophilia, which is a psychiatric disorder for which treatment is available.
authors.affiliation: Ms. Ranger is Research and Laboratory Technician, Forensic Research Unit, and Dr. Fedoroff is Head of Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Behaviours Clinic, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
authors.forename: Rebekah
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ranger
authors.affiliation: Ms. Ranger is Research and Laboratory Technician, Forensic Research Unit, and Dr. Fedoroff is Head of Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Behaviours Clinic, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Paul.Fedoroff@theroyal.ca.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Fedoroff
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010262:Paraphilic Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012742:Sex Offenses / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*