: Ulysses contracts have faced paternalism objections since they first were proposed. Since the contracts are designed to override a present request from a legally competent patient in favor of a past request made by that patient, enforcement of these contracts was argued to be unjustifiable strong paternalism. Recent legal developments and new theories of practical reasoning suggest that the discussion of Ulysses contracts should be revived. This paper argues that with a proper understanding of the future-directed planning embodied in (...) Ulysses contracts, the charge of strong paternalism can be answered, and the enforcement of some Ulysses contracts may be justified under the rubric of weak paternalism. (shrink)

Studies link involuntary outpatient commitment with improved patient outcomes, fueling debate on its ethical justification. This study compares inpatient utilization for committed outpatients in the 1990s with those who were not under outpatient civil commitment orders. Findings reveal committed outpatients had higher utilization of inpatient services and restraint episodes prior to their commitment compared with a control group. Committed outpatients also were more likely to have been on discharge status at the time of admission, have been admitted involuntarily under emergency (...) legal procedures, and have had a greater number of admissions and hospital days prior to their commitment. Following commitment, patients had fewer hospitalizations, shorter lengths of stay, fewer seclusion episodes and hours, and fewer restraint episodes and hours. Findings are discussed within the context of parens patriae and therapeutic jurisprudence, and support medical and public policy justifications for ethical uses of outpatient civil commitment laws for seriously mentally ill patients. (shrink)

Medicine’s fundamental moral philosophy is the responsibility of caring for the ill, yet beneficence is not under the province of the law.Indeed, fiduciary responsibilities of doctors are limited. Instead, American law is preoccupied with protecting patient rights under the precept of patient autonomy, and contemporary medical ethics is dominated by these concerns. The extrapolation of autonomy rights from the political and judicial culture to medicine is, under ordinary circumstance, non-problematic. However, in instances of conflict, the dominance of autonomy reveals a (...) hierarchy of values determining patient care. To illustrate the moral calculus of balancing competing principles, the ethical issues of involuntary treatment of psychotic patients are considered, and alternatives to the moral reasoning currently guiding the care of these individuals are offered to better solve the dilemma of respecting patient autonomy while still fulfilling the claims of physician responsibility. (shrink)

Objectives: This study considered the protective value provided by conditional release. It assessed the contribution of conditional release to mortality risk among patients with mental disorders severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization during a mental health treatment span of 13.5 years in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Death records were obtained from the Australian National Death Index for a sample of 24,973 Victorian Psychiatric Case Register patients with a history of psychiatric hospitalizations: 8,879 had experienced at least one conditional release during community (...) care intervals and 16,094 had not. Risk of death was assessed with standardized mortality ratios of the general population of Victoria. Relative risk of death among patients with and without past experience of conditional release was computed with risk and odds ratios. The contribution of conditional release to mortality, taking into account use of community care services, age, gender, inpatient experience, and diagnosis, as well as other controls, was assessed with logistic regression. Results: Patients who had been hospitalized showed higher mortality risk than the general population. Sixteen percent died. Patients exposed to conditional release, however, had a 14 percent reduction in probability of noninjury-related death and a 24 percent reduction per day on orders in the probability of death from injury compared with those not offered such oversight throughout their mental health treatment, all other factors taken into account. Conclusions: Conditional release can offer protective oversight for those considered dangerous to self or others and appears to reduce mortality risk among those with disorders severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization. (shrink)