Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

Restricting a person’s liberty presents society with many inherent ethical challenges. The historical purposes of confinement have included punishment, penitence, containment, rehabilitation, and habilitation. While the purposes are indeed complex, multifaceted, and at times ambiguous or contradictory, the fact of incarceration intrinsically creates many ethical challenges for psychiatrists working in correctional settings. Role definition of a psychiatrist may be ambiguous, with potential tensions between forensic and therapeutic demands. Privacy may be limited or absent and confidentiality may be compromised. Patient autonomy (...) may be threatened to address real or perceived security concerns. Care delivery may actually have harmful consequences in court cases for pretrial detainees or lethal consequences for those under a death sentence. An absence of data and targeted research hampers the development of evidence-based care delivery for the disenfranchised, understudied, and disproportionately ill prisoner population. In this review paper, I discuss a few of the challenges and dilemmas routinely faced and present a series of questions. Where feasible, proposed resolutions are offered. (shrink)

One approach to the analysis of ethical dilemmas in medical practice uses the “four principles plus scope” approach. These principles are: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, along with concern for their scope of application. However, conflicts between the different principles are commonplace in psychiatric practice, especially in forensic psychiatry, where duties to patients often conflict with duties to third parties such as the public. This article seeks to highlight some of the specific ethical dilemmas encountered in forensic psychiatry: (...) the excessive use of segregation for the protection of others, the ethics of using mechanical restraint when clinically beneficial and the use of physical treatment without consent. We argue that justice, as a principle, should be paramount in forensic psychiatry, and that there is a need for a more specific code of ethics to cover specialised areas of medicine like forensic psychiatry. This code should specify that in cases of conflict between different principles, justice should gain precedence over the other principles. (shrink)

The principle of “equivalence of care” in prison medicine is a principle by which prison health services are obliged to provide prisoners with care of a quality equivalent to that provided for the general public in the same country. It is cited in numerous national and international directives and recommendations.The principle of equivalence is extremely relevant from the point of view of normative ethics but requires adaptation from the point of view of applied ethics. From a clinical point of view, (...) the principle of equivalence is often insufficient to take account of the adaptations necessary for the organization of care in a correctional setting. The principle of equivalence is cost-effective in general, but has to be overstepped to ensure the humane management of certain special cases. (shrink)