Health care in prison and particularly the health care of older prisoners are increasingly important topics due to the growth of the ageing prisoner population. The aim of this paper is to gain insight into the approaches used in the provision of equivalent health care to ageing prisoners and to confront the intuitive definition of equivalent care and the practical and ethical challenges that have been experienced by individuals working in this field. Forty interviews took place with experts working in (...) the prison setting from three Western European countries to discover their views on prison health care. Experts indicated that the provision of equivalent care in prison is difficult mostly due to four factors: variability of care in different prisons, gatekeeper systems, lack of personnel, and delays in providing access. This lack of equivalence can be fixed by allocating adequate budgets and developing standards for health care in prison. (shrink)

Over the last decade, several European countries and the Council of Europe itself have strongly supported the use of advance directives as a means of protecting patients’ autonomy, and adopted specific norms to regulate this matter. However, it remains unclear under which conditions those regulations should apply to people who are placed in correctional settings. The issue is becoming more significant due to the increasing numbers of inmates of old age or at risk of suffering from mental disorders, all of (...) whom might benefit from using advance directives. At the same time, the closed nature of prisons and the disparate power relationships that characterise them mean that great caution must be exercised to prevent care being withdrawn or withheld from inmates who actually want to receive it. This paper explores the issue of prisoners’ advance directives in the European context, starting with the position enshrined in international and European law that prisoners retain all their human rights, except the right to liberty, and are therefore entitled to self-determination regarding health care decisions. (shrink)

Ensuring confidentiality is the cornerstone of trust within the doctor–patient relationship. However, health care providers have an obligation to serve not only their patient’s interests but also those of potential victims and society, resulting in circumstances where confidentiality must be breached. This article describes the attitudes of mental health professionals when patients disclose past crimes unknown to the justice system. Twenty-four MHPs working in Swiss prisons were interviewed. They shared their experiences concerning confidentiality practices and attitudes towards breaching confidentiality in (...) prison. Qualitative analysis revealed that MHPs study different factors before deciding whether a past crime should be disclosed, including: the type of therapy the prisoner-patient was seeking, the type of crime that is revealed, and the danger posed by the prisoner-patient. Based on this study’s findings, risk assessment of dangerousness was one of the most important factors determining disclosures of past crimes, taking into consideration both the type of therapy and the crime involved. Attitudes of MHPs varied with regard to confidentiality rules and when to breach confidentiality, and there was thus a lack of consensus as to when and whether past crimes should be reported. Hence, legal and ethical requirements concerning confidentiality breaches must be made clear and known to physicians in order to guide them with difficult cases. (shrink)

Prisoners sometimes die in prison, either due to natural illness, violence, suicide, or a result of imprisonment. The purpose of this study is to understand deaths in custody using qualitative methodology and to argue for a comprehensive definition of death in custody that acknowledges deaths related to the prison environment. Interviews were conducted with 33 experts, who primarily work as lawyers or forensic doctors with national and/or international organisations. Responses were coded and analysed qualitatively. Defining deaths in custody according to (...) the place of death was deemed problematic. Experts favoured a dynamic approach emphasising the link between the detention environment and occurrence of death rather than the actual place of death. Causes of deaths and different patterns of deaths were discussed, indicating that many of these deaths are preventable. Lack of an internationally recognised standard definition of death in custody is a major concern. Key aspects such as place, time, and causes of death as well as relation to the prison environment should be debated and incorporated into the definition. Systematic identification of violence within prison institutions is critical and efforts are needed to prevent unnecessary deaths in prison and to protect vulnerable prisoners. (shrink)

Forensic psychiatry is a particular subspecialty within psychiatry, dedicated in applying psychiatric knowledge and psychiatric training for particular legal purposes. Given that within the scope of forensic psychiatry, a third party usually intervenes in the patient-doctor relationship, an amendment of the traditional ethical principles seems justified. Thus, 47 articles, two book chapters and the guidelines produced by the World Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, as well as by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of (...) psychiatrists, were analyzed. The review revealed that the ethics of correctional forensic psychiatry and those of legal forensic psychiatry do not markedly differ from each other, but they are incongruent in terms of implementation. In an effort to better understand which ethical principles apply to forensic psychiatry, a chronological review of the literature published from 1950 to 2015 was carried out. The ethics of correctional forensic psychiatry are primarily deontological. The principle of justice translates into the principle of health care equivalence, the principle of beneficence into providing the best possible care to patients, and the principle of respect of autonomy into ensuring confidentiality and informed consent. The ethics of legal forensic psychiatry are rather consequentialist. In this latter setting, the principle of justice is mainly characterized by professionalism, the principle of beneficence by objectivity and impartiality, and the principle of respect of autonomy by informed consent. However, these two distinct fields of forensic psychiatry share in common the principle of non maleficence, defined as the non collaboration of the psychiatrist in any activity leading to inhuman and degrading treatment or to the death penalty. (shrink)

Compulsory psychiatric treatment is the norm in many Western countries, despite the increasingly individualistic and autonomous approach to medical interventions. Community Treatment Orders are the singular best example of this, requiring community patients to accept a variety of interventions, both pharmacological and social, despite their explicit wish not to do so. The epidemiological, medical/treatment and legal intricacies of CTOs have been examined in detail, however the ethical considerations are less commonly considered. Principlism, the normative ethical code based on the principles (...) of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, underpins modern medical ethics. Conflict exists between patient centred commentary that reflects individual autonomy in decision making and the need for supported decision making, as described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the increasing use of such coercive measures, which undermines this principle. What appears to have been lost is the analysis of whether CTOs, or any coercive measure in psychiatric practice measures up against these ethical principles. We consider whether CTOs, as an exemplar of coercive psychiatric practice, measures up against the tenets of principalism in the modern context in order to further this debate. (shrink)

In this article we critically examine the principle of equivalence of care in prison medicine. First, we provide an overview of how the principle of equivalence is utilized in various national and international guidelines on health care provision to prisoners. Second, we outline some of the problems associated with its applications, and argue that the principle of equivalence should go beyond equivalence to access and include equivalence of outcomes. However, because of the particular context of the prison environment, third, we (...) contend that the concept of “health” in equivalence of health outcomes needs conceptual clarity; otherwise, it fails to provide a threshold for healthy states among inmates. We accomplish this by examining common understandings of the concepts of health and disease. We conclude our article by showing why the conceptualization of diseases as clinical problems provides a helpful approach in the delivery of health care in prison. (shrink)

BackgroundThe principle of equivalence in prison health has been established for nearly four decades. It seeks to ensure that prisoners have access to the same level of healthcare as members of society at large, which is entrenched within the international legal framework and England’s national health policies.AimsThis study examined how key policymakers interpret and implement the principle of equivalence in English prisons. It also identified opportunities and threats associated with the application of the principle.MethodsIn total, 30 policymakers took part in (...) this research. These participants engaged in policymaking activities and occupied positions of authority in the prison field.ResultsDespite the policymakers’ consensus on the importance of the equivalence principle, there was a varying degree of understanding regarding what constitutes ‘equivalence’. Participants described how the security culture impedes prisoners’ access to healthcare services. Additionally, the increasing size and complexity of the prison population, coupled with a diminishing level of resources, reduce the level of care being provided in prisons and thus compromise implementation of equivalence in English prisons.ConclusionsInconsistent interpretation of equivalence, the prevailing security drive, increasing numbers and health complexities of prisoners and fiscal austerity threaten the implementation of equivalence in English prisons. This research calls for new guidance on how to interpret and implement equivalence, along with measures to educate prison governors and staff on the prison rehabilitation value, ensure greater investment in prison health and consider alternatives to imprisonment to future-proof the principle of equivalence in the English prison system. (shrink)