Background: Coercion in mental healthcare has led to ethical debate on its nature and use. However, few studies have explicitly explored patients’ moral evaluations of coercion. Aim: The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of patients’ moral views and considerations regarding coercion. Research design: Semi-structured focus-group and individual interviews were conducted and data were analysed through a thematic content analysis. Participants and research context: A total of 24 adult participants with various mental health problems and experiences with coercion (...) were interviewed in 2012–2013 in three regions of Norway. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval and permissions were obtained according to required procedures. Informed consent and confidentiality were also secured. Findings: Ethical considerations regarding coercion included seven main themes: the need for alternative perspectives and solutions, the existence of a danger or harm to oneself or others, the problem of paternalism, the problem of discrimination and stigma, the need for proportionality, the importance of the content and consequences of coercion and concerns about way that coercion is carried out in practice. Discussion: The participants’ views and considerations are in line with previous research and reflect the range of normative arguments commonly encountered in ethical and legal debates. The study accentuates the significance of institutional factors and alternative voluntary treatment opportunities, as well as the legal and ethical principles of proportionality and purposefulness, in moral evaluations of coercion. Conclusion: Broader perspectives on coercion are required to comprehend its ethical challenges and derive possible solutions to these from a patient perspective. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2020, Page 82-84.

In the UK, higher education and health care providers share responsibility for educating the workforce. The challenges facing health practice also face health education and as educators we are implicated, by the way we design curricula and through students’ experiences and their stories.

Bioethics has increasingly become a standard part of medical school education and the training of healthcare professionals more generally. This is a promising development, as it has the potential to help future practitioners become more attentive to moral concerns and, perhaps, better moral reasoners. At the same time, there is growing recognition within bioethics that nonideal theory can play an important role in formulating normative recommendations. In this chapter we discuss what this shift toward nonideal theory means for ethical curricula (...) within healthcare education. In particular, we contend that more attention to the particularities of historical and social context needs to be incorporated into bioethics training. To make this argument, we focus on two examples: teaching units on race and medicine and those that focus on stigma and coercion in mental health. For both, we show how a pedagogical approach in which educators focus on social injustice could influence how practitioners engage in ethics in the clinic. This chapter, then, demonstrates what a commitment to nonideal theory can mean practically when it comes to bioethics education. (shrink)

Forensic mental health services (FMHS) involve restricting certain individual rights to uphold or promote other ethical values – the restriction of liberty in various forms is justified with reference to health and safety of the individual and the community. The tension that arises from this has been construed as a hallmark of the practice and an ever-present quandary for practitioners. Stating this ethical dilemma upfront is a common point of departure for many texts discussing FMHS. But do we run the (...) risk of missing something important if setting the ethical scene rather than exploring it? This paper draws on interviews with three types of interested parties in mental health law proceedings – patients, psychiatrists and public defenders, and seeks to tease out what values are enacted when they describe and discuss experiences of FMHS and court proceedings. In doing so, we find emphasized values such as acceptance, telling it like it is, atonement, normality, and ensuring the future. We find that well-delineated and separate values are not necessarily the basis for decisions. We also find potential for explanation and guidance in bringing ethical discourse closer to everyday practice. (shrink)

Psychiatric inpatients with capacity may be treated paternalistically under the Mental Health Act 1983. This violates bodily autonomy and causes potentially significant harm to health and moral status, both of which may be long-lasting. I suggest that such harms may extend to killing moral persons through the impact of psychotropic drugs on psychological connectedness. Unsurprisingly, existing legislation is overwhelmingly disliked by psychiatric inpatients, the majority of whom have capacity. I present four arguments for involuntary treatment: individual safety, public safety, authentic (...) wishes and protection of autonomy. I explore these through a case study: a patient with schizophrenia admitted to a psychiatric hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 after an episode of self-poisoning. Through its discussion of preventative detention, the public safety argument articulates the (un)ethical underpinnings of the current position in English law. Ultimately, none of the four arguments are cogent—all fail to justify the current legal discrimination faced by psychiatric inpatients. I conclude against any use of involuntary treatment in psychiatric inpatients with capacity, endorsing the fusion approach where only psychiatric patients lacking capacity may be treated involuntarily. (shrink)