Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry?
| Autor: | J. J. M. van Delden, E. J. D. Prinsen |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | University of Groningen |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2009 |
| Předmět: |
Mental Health Services
Restraint Physical medicine.medical_specialty Health (social science) PERCEPTIONS media_common.quotation_subject Coercion Appeal PATIENT Dignity Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous) Perception Dangerous Behavior medicine Humans Ethics Medical Principle of sufficient reason Psychiatry PERSPECTIVE SECLUSION media_common DIGNITY Health Policy Mental Disorders Beneficence SPECIAL SECTION CARE RESTRAINT Issues ethics and legal aspects Patient Rights Personal Autonomy Commitment of Mentally Ill Seclusion Psychology Social psychology Autonomy ETHICS VIOLENCE |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(1), 69-73 |
| ISSN: | 0306-6800 |
| DOI: | 10.1136/jme.2007.022780 |
| Popis: | The practice of coercive measures in psychiatry is controversial. Although some have suggested that it may be acceptable if patients are a danger to others or to themselves, others committed themselves to eliminate it. Ethical, legal and clinical considerations become more complex when the mental incapacity is temporary and when the coercive measures serve to restore autonomy. We discuss these issues, addressing the conflict between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence, human dignity, the experiences of patients and the effects of coercive measures. We argue that an appeal to respect autonomy and/or human dignity cannot be a sufficient reason to reject coercive measures. All together, these ethical aspects can be used both to support and to reject a non-seclusion approach. The total lack of controlled trials about the beneficial effects of coercive measures in different populations however, argues against the use of coercive measures. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|