Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry?

Journal of Medical Ethics - Tập 35 Số 1 - Trang 69-73 - 2009
E J D Prinsen1, Johannes J. M. van Delden2
1Zwolse Poort, Institute for Mental Health West-Overijssel, Knapenveldsweg 1/P.O. Box 110, 8102 RR/8000 AC Raalte, The Netherlands
2Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

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.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S0193-953X(02)00003-5

10.1176/appi.ps.53.6.663

Colaizzi, 2005, Seclusion & restraint: a historical perspective., J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv, 43, 31, 10.3928/02793695-20050201-07

10.1192/bjp.188.1.7

10.1177/096973300100800606

10.1111/1467-8519.00163

Lendemeijer B Shortridge-Baggett L . The use of seclusion in psychiatry: a literature review. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 1997;11:299–315; discussion 317–20.

Sailas, 2005, Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards., Curr Opin Psychiatry, 18, 555, 10.1097/01.yco.0000179497.46182.6f

10.1080/016128402753542785

10.1176/appi.ps.55.11.1311

10.1007/s11089-005-5581-3

10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1115

10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1141

Berghmans RLP . Dwangmedicatie in penitentiaire inrichtingen: ethische aspecten. Proces 1999;5/ 6:71–4.

10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00715.x

10.1191/0969733005ne802oa

10.1136/jme.2005.012708

10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1139

Fisher, 1994, Restraint and seclusion: a review of the literature., Am J Psychiatry, 151, 1584, 10.1176/ajp.151.11.1584

Busch AB Shore MF . Seclusion and restraint: a review of recent literature. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2000;8:261–70. Review.

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.01.005

Stolker JJ Hugenholtz GW Heerdink ER . Separatie van opgenomen psychotische patienten: later bij gebruik van antipsychotica en mogelijk ook minder vaak [Seclusion of admitted psychotic patients: later in the case of antipsychotic use and also possibly less often. ] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003 22;147:557–61.

10.1192/bjp.184.3.258

10.1111/j.1440-1665.2004.02125.x

Lendemeijer B . Het gebruik van separatie in de psychiatrie: Motieven en redenen van verpleegkundigen. [Utilization of seclusion. Motives and reasons of nurses] Verpleegkunde 1997;12:217–26. Dutch.

10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00411.x

Campbell AV . Dependency: the foundational value in medical ethics. In: Fulford K W M , eds. Medicine and moral reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994:184–92.

Soloff PH . Historical notes on seclusion and restraint. In: Tardiff K , ed. The psychiatric uses of seclusion and restraint. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984:1–10.

Beauchamp TL Childress JF . Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.

10.1023/A:1012048907443

10.1046/j.1351-0126.2001.00413.x

American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Nurses Association and the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems . Learning from each other, success stories and ideas for reducing restraint/seclusion in behavioral health. 2003. Available at: http://www.naphs.org/rscampaign/Learning.pdf (accessed 10 Sep 2008).

10.1093/humrep/12.9.2076

10.1076/chbi.7.3.333.6876

10.1023/A:1019521923979

Nordenfelt L . The varieties of dignity. Health Care Anal 2004;12:69–81; discussion 83–9.

10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01241.x

10.1111/j.1365-2850.2003.00710.x

Lendemeijer B . Seclusion in psychiatry—aspects of decision making. Utrecht: Publicard, 2000.

10.1192/bjp.185.4.277

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03062.x

Gutheil TG Tardiff K . Indications and contraindications for seclusion and restraint. In: Tardiff K , ed. The Psychiatric uses of seclusion and restraint. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984:19–34.

Sailas E Fenton M . Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;:CD001163.

Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Deadly restraints, psychiatry’s “therapeutic”assault. Report and recommendations on violent and dangerous use of restraints in mental health facilities. 2004. Available to purchase online: http://www.cchr.org/index/5276/6683/6694 (accessed 15 Aug 2008).

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Medical Ethics

Tập 35 Số 1

69-73

Thông tin tác giả