Affiliation:
1. Psychiatrist Canberra Psychiatry Group and NHMRC Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Unit, GPO Box 610, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to analyse the ethical underpinning of involuntary treatment and to create a guide for psychiatric practice which clarifies its relationship with modern mainstream clinical ethics. Method: Literature on ethics, involuntary treatment, civil commitment, diagnosis and law was searched and examined. Result: Hospitalisation for involuntary treatment and control has blurred two important discriminations: the discrimination between clinical and social constructions of mental illness and the discrimination between therapeutic actions and policing control. Plotting these discriminations creates a map of ethics in involuntary treatment. Although there are clinical roles throughout involuntary treatment, the ethical issues vary according to whether clinical actions are taken on clinically or socially constructed diagnosis and whether the purpose of the actions is therapy or control. Conclusion: Paternalist involuntary treatment should be undertaken more readily when it is for clinically defined illness and for the benefit of the patient. Where the conditions are defined by social behaviours alone, where treatment is not useful to the patient, or where actions have policing intent, particular ethical approaches need to be taken to defend the patient, the clinician-patient relationship and the reputation of the profession.
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,General Medicine
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献