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.
References
1.
BeauchampTLChildressJFPrinciples of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
2.
HidayVACoercion in civil commitment. Process, preferences and outcome. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry1992; 15:359–377.
3.
JonesK.Asylums and after. London: Athlone Press, 1993.
4.
FoucaultM.The great confinement. In: RabinowR, ed. The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon, 1984.
5.
InglebyD.Mental health and social order. In: CohenSScullA, eds. Social control and the state. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.
6.
DershowitzA.The origins of preventive confinement in Anglo-American law—Part I. The English experience. University of Cincinnati Law Review1974; 43:1–60.
7.
GardnerWLidzCWMulveyEPShawECClinical versus actuarial prediction of violence of patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology1996; 64:602–609.
8.
SteadmanHJMulveyEPMonahanJViolence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry1998; 55:393–401.
9.
LidzCWHogeSKGardnerWPerceived coercion in mental hospital admission. Archives of General Psychiatry1995; 52:1034–1039.
10.
World Medical Association.International code of medical ethics. World Medical Association Bulletin1949; 1:109–111.
11.
FeinbergJ.What is so special about mental illness?. In: Feinberg J. Doing and deserving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.
12.
WakefieldJCThe concept of mental disorder. American Psychologist1992; 47:373–388.
13.
ReesN.Mental illness: the Australian search for a workable definition. International Journal of Mental Health1994; 22:23–38.
14.
W v. L. Queens Bench, 1974, 1, 711.
15.
New South Wales Law Reports1987, 10, 440.
16.
RosenmanSJMental health law: an idea whose time has passed. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry1994; 28:560–565.
17.
BakerR.Conceptions of mental illness. In: RcichWT, ed. Encycolpaedia of Bioethics. New York: Macmillan, 1995:1731–1743.
18.
WakefieldJCDisorder as harmful dysfunction: a conceptual critique of DSM-III-R's definition of mental disorder. Psychological Review1992; 99:232–247.
19.
CampbellEJMScaddingJGRobertsRSThe concept of disease. British Medical Journal1979; 2:757–762.
20.
KendellREThe concept of disease and its implications for psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry1975; 127:305–315.
21.
KendellREWhat are mental disorders? In FreedmanA, ed. Issues in psychiatric classification. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1986.
22.
Kräupl-TaylorF.The concepts of disease. Psychological Medicine1980; 10:419–424.
23.
McAuleyF.Insanity, psychiatry and criminal responsibility. Dublin: Round Hall Press, 1993.
24.
ParkerN.The Garry David case. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry1991; 25:371–374.
25.
AppelbaumPSEthics in evolution: the incompatibility of clinical and forensic functions. American Journal of Psychiatry1997; 154:445–446.
26.
FulfordKWMSmirnovAYUSnowE.Concepts of disease and the abuse of psychiatry in the USSR. British Journal of Psychiatry1993; 162:801–810.
27.
StoneAAPresidential address: conceptual ambiguity and morality in modern psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry1980; 137:887–890.
28.
MurrayTHDivided loyalties for physicians. Social Science and Medicine1986; 23:827–832.
29.
ToulminS.Divided loyalties and ambiguous relationships. Social Science and Medicine1986; 23:783–787.
30.
Johnson vs Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113 at 134–5.
31.
McInerney v McDonald (1992) 93 DLR (4th) 415.
32.
Breen vs Williams (1994) 35 NSWLR 522.
33.
Keon-CohenB.Can the Victorian Parliament abolish fundamental rights? In: GerullSLucasW, eds. Serious violent offenders: sentencing, psychiatry and law reform. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 19, 1993.
34.
MacklinR.Refusal of psychiatric treatment: autonomy, competence and paternalism. In: BellNK, ed. Who decides? Conflicts of rights in health care. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1982.
35.
EdwardsGLaderM.Addiction: processes of change. Oxford: University Press Oxford, 1994.
36.
WinickBJThe right to refuse mental health treatment: a therapeutic jurisprudence analysis. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry1994; 17:99–117.
37.
StoneAALaw, psychiatry and morality. Washington: American Psychiatric Press, 1984.
