And that is precisely the problem.

The methodology currently in use by TSA to look for non-metallic explosives is the least effective (other than metal detection) one to use.

Color me surprised.

The TSA is a federal agency that must comply with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and provide facilities accessible to the disabled. Serious PTSD subsequent to sexual assault is a covered disability, depending on the symptoms.

From the American Association of People with Disabilities: The OP should pursue this line of complaint and inquiry: that the TSA failed to provide accomodations appropriate to his wife's disability. The page that I linked to above gives detailed instructions on how to file these types of complaints. Don't forget to CC: your congressional representatives.

I don't want to fly in a world where anyone who claims mental distress gets to avoid pat downs after setting off a metal detector or after getting arrested.

My post has been edited. Thanks for the appropriate comment.

Neither of which occurred in this situation.

Why should we care what you want or don't want? After all, no one is forcing you to fly. (ha!) But the federal government should, in fact, be forced to follow the law.

How do you keep a recording device with you when you're being groped?

What do you want it to do? Ignore anomalies on the x ray machine and forego pat downs if the passenger claims to have mental health issues and an aversion to being touched? That's not reasonable.

I can only answer your rhetorical question by replying that I don't accept the premise. I'm opposed to the use of X-Ray scanners and to those falsely named "pat downs" that are actually custodial-style searches.

I don't believe submitting to one or the other - or both - enhances the safety of the traveling public to any meaningful degree but I believe their presence as standard operating procedure is a dreadful incursion on the rights of Americans.

YMMV.

Do you believe in metal detectors? What should TSA do if a person sets off a metal detector or makes the wand beep but claims to have mental health reasons why they shouldn't be pat down?

More room for those of us who aren't cowards.

Try reading the OP again:
Are you claiming that the items I've highlighted in bold above are proper procedure? Threatening language, yelling, lewd, throwing their authority around? Really? The OP explicitly said that if the screeners had behaved professionally and politely like the ones in Japan (and, IME, nearly everywhere else in the world), his wife would have been okay.

This is not a story about setting off the WTMD and then refusing a patdown. In fact, the WTMD would have been a better choice for the OP's wife:
The issue is two fold - first, compared to the WTMD, the NoS has a higher incidence of false positives, leading to more pat downs after scanning, not to mention a pat down if one opts out. Secondly, it's the way that the pat down is done - whether it's respectful and polite or whether it's a nasty, rude power play to enforce the screener's authority - more than the need to do the pat down.

When she asked for a private room, the screener should have said, "Of course, right this way" rather than getting pissed off. (In fact, the screener should have offered the private room in the first place; TSA keeps banging on about how you're allowed to have a private room and a witness.) When she started shaking and crying, the screener could have paused for a moment, said "I know this is difficult for you. Take a minute to catch your breath and let me know when you're ready to go on. I'll be as quick as I can." rather than yelling at the husband. But this would have given the passenger control ("let me know when you're ready") rather than enforcing the screener's authority.

I've had a patdown in Japan where the screener apologized before, during and after, let me stay seated (I had only sat down to take my shoes off but she said, "it's okay, you can stay there") and went and got my shoes from the conveyor belt afterwards, and helped me put them on. Also the actual pat down was not at all invasive. It was entirely about making me feel comfortable during an awkward process, not about making the screener feel powerful and important.

Let me express my sincere sympathy for what you and your wife experienced. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is all to common.

I had a meeting with TSA officials today before I read this post. They think they are doing a great job! They are proud that Less than 8% of the 750,000 to 800,000 of the calls they receive every year are complaints! I did the math; that's over 1,000 complaints a week, and nothing for TSA to be proud of.

right2fly.org

But WTMD plus wand isn't an option anymore in the US. It doesn't exist, so why argue that fact?

The scanner is useless. The extremely high rate of anomalies is one of the many reasons the German federal police refused the scanners after extensive trials, and why most countries around the world refuse to use them.

I don't have time to post my Werner Gruber link right now, but you really should educate yourself on why so many are angry at the waste in the US to use something which doesn't make you safer.

the new zealanders use metal detectors and hand wanding to resolve. I saw no touching whatsoever the last time I passed through it. women's underwires evidently set off the WTMD occasionally and the wand confirmed the location without any need for breast groping and crotch feeling. why do you insist that this must be done? These are things that really cannot be done to people not under criminal suspicion. This is an odd and sick fetish. From an odd and sick agency.