Forced treatment in psychiatry cannot be defended, neither on ethical, legal or scientific grounds. It has never been shown that forced treatment does more good than harm, and it is highly likely that the opposite is true.
Full Answer
Is forced treatment in psychiatry ethical and legal?
Forced treatment in psychiatry cannot be defended, neither on ethical, legal or scientific grounds. It has never been shown that forced treatment does more good than harm, and it is highly likely that the opposite is true.
What is mandatory mental health treatment?
Mandated treatment offers access to mental health care that a person might not otherwise have. Some studies suggest that people pursuing court-ordered treatment may be less motivated in treatment or less likely to be honest with clinicians. Because treatment is mandatory, however, court-mandated treatments improve treatment completion rates.
Do you agree with forced treatment for mental illness?
Only with first hand experience of the psych drugs does a person know they are not medicines. I agree with “forced treatment” but it should be called by its true name of “preventive detention”.
What is the legal obligation to end forced psychiatric interventions?
The obligation to end forced psychiatric interventions based on grounds of disability is of immediate application and scarce financial resources cannot justify postponement of its implementation.” – Report A/HRC/22/53 of the Special Rapportuer on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of 1.
Is forced treatment good or bad?
It has never been shown that forced treatment does more good than harm, and it is highly likely that the opposite is true. We need to abolish our laws about this, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which virtually all countries have ratified.
Can forced treatment be defended?
Forced treatment cannot be defended, neither on ethical, legal or scientific grounds. We need to abolish our laws about this, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 1 The evidence we have tells us that forced treatment increases the harm done not only to patients but also to others. 2,6,14.15 Violence breeds violence, but perhaps the strongest argument against forced drugging and ECT is that, apart from psychiatric patients, only soldiers at war are forced to run risks against their will that might kill them. The difference is that soldiers have usually chosen themselves to become soldiers whereas psychiatric patients have not chosen to become psychiatric patients.
What is court mandated treatment?
Court-mandated treatments imply a dual role for therapy providers not only of caring for, but also of having control over, involuntary clients. The impact of legal coercion on the therapeutic relationship and feelings of stigma is widely regarded as negative and detrimental for treatment outcomes. This point of view stands in contrast to advocates of the perspective that involuntary treatment can ameliorate social functioning and thus promote a better quality of life. Regarding other outcome measures, there is evidence that offender treatment is effective and leads to reduced recidivism in criminal behavior. This narrative review provides an overview of research assessing the effects of mandatory treatment on therapeutic process and outcome factors. We conclude that legal mandatory treatment does not have to necessarily result in perceived coercion and reduced satisfaction with treatment and that a caring and authoritative treatment style aids a favorable therapeutic alliance, motivation, and therapy outcomes.
How does biomedical treatment affect criminal justice?
Biomedical interventions, such as pharmacological and neurological interventions, are increasingly being offered or considered for offer to offenders in the criminal justice system as a means of reducing recidivism and achieving offender rehabilitation through treatment . An offender’s consent to treatment may affect decisions about diversion from the criminal justice system, sentence or parole, and so hope for a preferable treatment in the criminal justice system may influence the offender’s consent. This thematic analysis of three focus group interviews conducted in Canada with members of the public investigates how the public views the use of biomedical treatments within the criminal justice system, and the practice of encouraging offender consent to biomedical treatment through the hope of a reduced criminal sentence. The public focus group discussions followed a semi-structured interview guide, and were based on two hypothetical case examples involving individuals choosing whether to consent to a range of cocaine addiction or anti-libidinal treatments respectively in the hope of receiving a more lenient sentence. The discussions covered a wide range of themes, and here we present the participants’ evaluations of this type of biomedical treatment offer in light of three key theoretical sentencing objectives: the promotion of public safety, the infliction of retributive punishment, and the rehabilitation of offenders. We conclude that public safety was the predominant concern of the participants when evaluating biomedical treatment offered at the time of sentencing to offenders who had committed serious crimes. Another important observation was that the public tended to reframe and evaluate biomedical interventions in terms of retribution and punishment, rather than rehabilitation and reform.
What is the aetiology of developmental and acquired paedophilia?
This article reviews the current neurobiological literature on the aetiology of developmental and acquired paedophilia and examines what the consequences could be in terms of responsibility and treatment for the latter. Addressing the question of responsibility and punishment of offenders with acquired paedophilia from a neurobiological perspective is controversial. Consequently it is essential to avoid hasty conclusions based strictly on neurobiological abnormality justifications. This study establishes a distinction between developmental and acquired paedophilia. The article investigates whether offenders who fulfil the diagnosis of acquired paedophilia should be held fully responsible, particularly in cases where the offender's conduct appears to result from volitionally controlled behaviour that is seemingly incompatible with a neurological cause. Moreover, the article explores how responsibility can be compromised when offenders with acquired paedophilia have (partially) preserved moral knowledge despite their sexual disorder. The article then examines the option of offering mandatory treatment as an alternative to imprisonment for offenders with acquired paedophilia. Furthermore, the article addresses the ethical issues related to offering any form of quasi-coercive treatment as a condition of release. This study concludes that decisions to fully or partially excuse an individual who fulfil the diagnosis of acquired paedophilia should take all relevant information into account, both neurobiological and other environmental evidence, and should proceed on a careful case by case analysis before sentencing or offering treatment. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
What is the purpose of neurobiological research?
In conceptual debates on addiction, neurobiological research has been used to support the idea that addicted drug users lack control over their addiction-related actions. In some interpretations, this has led to coercive treatment models, in which, the purpose is to 'restore' control. However, neurobiological studies that go beyond what is typically presented in conceptual debates paint a different story. In particular, they indicate that though addiction has neurobiological manifestations that make the addictive behaviour difficult to control, it is possible for individuals to reverse these manifestations through their own efforts. Thus, addicted individuals should not be considered incapable of making choices voluntarily, simply on the basis that addiction has neurobiological manifestations, and coercive treatment models of addiction should be reconsidered in this respect.
What is neurobiology in criminology?
Current neurobiological research in the field of criminology focuses on the neurobiological characteristics associated with antisocial behavior, the prediction of antisocial behavior later in life based on neurobiological risk factors, and the ways in which neurobiological factors interact with psychological and environmental risk factors. Although the use of neurobiological knowledge has the potential to make several criminal justice practices more objective and humane, it may involve practices that are challenging with respect to stigma, neuro-determinism, autonomy and mental liberty. Four main areas of interest can be identified where neurobiology plays or could play a role: (1) criminological research focused on understanding criminal behavior, (2) the (early) detection/prediction of and intervention in deviant behavior, (3) criminal proceedings: to assess responsibility and inform sentencing, and (4) forensic rehabilitation and treatment settings. In this paper, I discuss the main ethical dilemmas that arise when considering the use of recent neurobiological advances in these areas.
What is the future of addiction treatment?
The future of treatment—including addiction treatment—is biotechnological. Depot injections, agonist/antagonist implants, deep brain stimulation, and hapten conjugate vaccines are hailed by researchers and pharmaceutical manufacturers as medicine's best hope to minimize illicit use, to decrease risk of overdose and painful withdrawal, and to prevent diversion of medicines to illicit markets. Marketing and use of new technologies reveal old tensions framing concepts of addiction and its treatment: between medical condition and disorder of the will, between criminal justice and health, and between patient choice and system control. Using the examples of depot naltrexone and implantable and injectable buprenorphine in the U.S., this essay considers the arc of long-acting opioid treatment and implications for the future. These include the rise of Vivitrol courts and “carceral prescription”—where criminal justice systems mandate medicine to lock up brain receptors much as they might lock up people themselves—as well as use of buprenorphine formulations positioned as increasing both patient benefit and provider control. We also consider lessons from debates on long-acting contraceptive technologies such as Norplant and Depo-Provera. While multiple new long-acting formulations are under development, success will be determined less by characteristics of particular formulations and more by whether or not the new technologies are accompanied by a new ethics of addiction treatment that emphasizes therapeutic alliance, concordance over compliance, and a genuine commitment to allowing patients the ability to narrate and be believed in their descriptions of their treatment experiences.
How does adolescence affect the risk of precocious use of psychoactive substances?
The physical, psychological and social modifications in adolescence deepen the condition of vulnerability and increase the risk of precocious use of psychoactive substances (PAS). This cross-sectional study covered 229 adolescent users of PAS under treatment at a psychosocial center for the care of children and adolescents (CAPSIA), during the first ten years of the service, with the purpose of outlining the bio-socio-psychological of the users and profile of the users and identifying risk factors for beginning drug use among adolescents. Most of the medical records belonging to male patients who practice or had practiced misdemeanors as school dropouts and had lived or live with family members who use drugs, and/or in situations of family aggression. Such data reveal a profile of vulnerability that generates a need for additional protection on the part of the diverse services for child and adolescent care, in different spheres.
When does mandatory treatment apply?
What Is Mandated Treatment and When Does It Apply? April 22, 2019 • By Zawn Villines. When mental health conditions contribute to violent or dangerous behavior, affect the way a person treats their children, or increase the risk of recidivism, a court may order treatment. A court may also compel treatment if a person is deemed a risk ...
Who should review mandated treatment?
People undergoing mandated treatment should review all of their options, especially if they are permitted to choose among several therapists or facilities. When court-mandated treatment requires a person to seek treatment from a specific person or organization, advocates such as lawyers and family members can be key.
What is court ordered treatment?
Research on the value of court-ordered treatment is mixed. Mandated treatment offers access to mental health care that a person might not otherwise have. Some studies suggest that people pursuing court-ordered treatment may be less motivated in treatment or less likely to be honest with clinicians.
Why is court ordered treatment important?
Because treatment is mandatory, however, court-mandated treatments improve treatment completion rates. The benefits and risks of court-ordered treatment depend on the type of treatment, the client’s commitment to treatment, the skill of the treating clinician, and numerous other factors. The benefits and risks of court-ordered treatment depend on ...
How does incarceration affect mental health?
Researchers have repeatedly documented the harmful effects of incarceration on mental health. When court-mandated treatment helps a person avoid jail or prison time , it may prevent their mental health from deteriorating. Mandated programs also have some shortcomings.
What is informed refusal?
Legal principles of informed consent and informed refusal mean that a person cannot be forced into treatment without a court order. Some states offer a brief exception for 72 hour evaluation holds. In this scenario, however, a mental health professional must believe the person is a threat to themselves or others.
How long is a mental health hold?
These emergency holds require a person to seek evaluation at a mental health facility—usually a psychiatric hospital. In most cases, the hold lasts 72 hours. After the initial hold period, state laws vary.
What is ethical issue?
ETHICAL ISSUES. Ethic is defined as “a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.” [5] Technically, ethics talk about morality and desirable way of behaving but may not be binding on an individual.
Why is lack of history a major problem in forensic psychiatric setting?
Also, because of unawareness regarding mental disorders, the only history obtained from the medical officer is of the patient being irritable or displaying suicidal threats. This is not enough to arrive at a diagnosis. Thus, the lack of adequate history is a major problem in a forensic psychiatric setting.
What is absconding behavior in patients with mental illness?
Absconding behavior in patients with mental illness. When PWMI abscond from psychiatric hospitals, especially closed wards, it places an enormous burden on the hospital staff in terms of the legal implications. The absconders may not take care of self and may be at risk of harm to self, others, and property.
What are the legal aspects of patient care?
The legal aspects of patient care are determined by country-specific regulations, which in turn are governed by medical ethics. For instance, when an Indian psychiatrist is alleged of “wrongdoing,” it is determined whether he acted contrary to “medical ethics,”[6] or to the pertaining laws in the country.[1] .
How many cases were acquitted of mental illness?
The 18 (17.65%) cases out of a total of 102 cases were acquitted on the grounds of mental illness. The Honorable High Courts’ judgment was mostly in line with the judgment of the lower Court and heavily relied on the documentary evidence of mental illness.
Do faculty members have to be involved in legal aspects of patient care?
Third, the faculty members may not involve them in legal aspects of patient care, believing it is not their responsibility. In my place of work, which is a tertiary level teaching public hospital, the psychiatry residents are routinely involved in legal aspects of patient care.
Can a spouse use psychotropics during pregnancy?
Her spouse also wants to discuss regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and the need for and the safety of psychotropics in pregnancy. The spouse may, unfortunately, use the disclosed information for any purpose (including divorce) and the lady may sue the treating doctor for breaching the confidentiality.
What is mandatory treatment?
Mandatory treatment is defined as “treatment ordered, motivated, or supervised under the criminal justice system.”. Mandatory treatment is defined as “treatment ordered, motivated, or supervised under the criminal justice system.” 1 Going beyond the more common drug court approaches that offer a person charged with a crime the choice ...
Why is mandatory drug treatment important?
Researching the role of mandatory drug treatment is essential because it has wide-reaching policy applications. Of the 2.3 million incarcerated individuals in the United States, 1.5 million meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition(DSM-IV) criteria for substance abuse disorder, and another 458,000 do not meet strict ...
What comes to mind when hearing the term "coerced" or "compulsory" treatment?
What comes to mind when hearing the term “coerced” or “compulsory” treatment is typically “the kind of person who’s thinking, ‘I don’t want to do this,’ but is forced into a program anyway,” Dr Farabee observed.
What is compulsory drug treatment?
8 Compulsory drug treatment can be defined as “the mandatory enrollment of individuals, who are often but not necessarily drug-dependent, in a drug treatment program.” 8. Although compulsory drug treatment most frequently consists of “forced inpatient treatment,” it can ...
Is pharmacotherapy underused in criminal justice?
Pharmacotherapy. Evidence-based pharmacotherapies for substance use disorders are underused in criminal justice settings. 15 However, research suggests their efficacy in settings of incarceration.
Is motivational interviewing a stand alone treatment?
Motivational interviewing “has been widely validated as a stand-alone treatment, as a precursor to more extensive treatment, or integrated with other components, such as tailored feedback.” 14 Motivational interviewing has shown good outcomes in criminal justice settings and is a “tool for promoting evidence-based practice in the criminal justice system.” 14
