Under which conditions are changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment justified during the COVID-19 pandemic? An ethical evaluation of current developments in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses significant challenges in psychiatric hospitals, particularly in the context of the treatment of people under involuntary commitment. The question arises at various points in the procedure for and process of involuntary commitment whether procedural modifications or further restrictive measures are necessary to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and protect all people involved from infection. In the light of current developments in Germany, this article examines under which conditions changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment are ethically justified in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among others, we discuss ethical arguments for and against involuntary commitments with reference to COVID-19, the use of different coercive interventions, the introduction of video hearings, an increased use of video surveillance and interventions based on the German Infection Protection Act. We argue that strict hygiene concepts, the provision of sufficient personal protective equipment and frequent testing for COVID-19 should be the central strategies to ensure the best possible protection against infection. Any further restrictions of the liberty of people under involuntary commitment require a sound ethical justification based on the criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality. A strict compliance with these criteria and the continued oversight by external and independent control mechanisms are important to prevent ethically unjustified restrictions and discrimination against people with the diagnosis of a mental disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mental health, mental capacity, ethics, and the law in the context of COVID-19 (coronavirus).

The emergence of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020 presented new and urgent challenges to mental health services and legislators around the world. This special issue of the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry explores mental health law, mental capacity law, and medical and legal ethics in the context of COVID-19. Papers are drawn from India, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, and the United States. Together, these articles demonstrate the complexity of psychiatric and legal issues prompted by COVID-19 in terms of providing mental health care, protecting rights, exercising decision-making capacity, and a range of other topics. While further work is needed in many of these areas, these papers provide a strong framework for addressing key issues and meeting the challenges that COVID-19 and, possibly, other outbreaks are likely to present in the future.

[From empathy to commitment, the ethical approach in psychiatry]. / De l'empathie à l'engagement, la démarche éthique en psychiatrie.

Ethical questioning and reflection are a requirement for the psychiatric caregiver, a particular discipline which is both clinical and political. Ethics is a safeguard that allows the professional to refocus on the core of their profession. It is not synonymous with morality and is situational. It is a combat sport against oneself and against those who reduce the patient to a human-machine to be repaired.

Compulsory admissions of patients with mental disorders: State of the art on ethical and legislative aspects in 40 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory admission procedures of patients with mental disorders vary between countries in Europe. The Ethics Committee of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) launched a survey on involuntary admission procedures of patients with mental disorders in 40 countries to gather information from all National Psychiatric Associations that are members of the EPA to develop recommendations for improving involuntary admission processes and promote voluntary care. METHODS: The survey focused on legislation of involuntary admissions and key actors involved in the admission procedure as well as most common reasons for involuntary admissions. RESULTS: We analyzed the survey categorical data in themes, which highlight that both medical and legal actors are involved in involuntary admission procedures. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that legal reasons for compulsory admission should be reworded in order to remove stigmatization of the patient, that raising awareness about involuntary admission procedures and patient rights with both patients and family advocacy groups is paramount, that communication about procedures should be widely available in lay-language for the general population, and that training sessions and guidance should be available for legal and medical practitioners. Finally, people working in the field need to be constantly aware about the ethical challenges surrounding compulsory admissions.

Psychiatrists' opinion about involuntary outpatient reatment.

INTRODUCTION: Involuntary outpatient treatment (IOT) is a kind of compulsory outpatient treatment, whose aim is to improve the adherence to the treatment in people with severe mental illness and with no awareness of disease. In these cases, therapeutic abandonment involves a high risk of relapse, with appearance of disruptive and/or self-aggressive or hetero-aggressive behavior, repeated hospitalizations and frequent emergencies. The application of IOT is not an issue without contention. Therefore, the need of legislative regulation in Spain has been a controversial subject for several years, and there are both advocates and opponents. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to bring together the opinion of clinical psychiatrists and resident doctors in psychiatry on the involuntary outpatient treatment and its legislative regulation. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study is descriptive in nature. The study population consists of 42 clinical professionals in mental health (32 psychiatrists and 10 resident doctors in psychiatry). At the beginning of this study (March 2018), some of these professionals were working in the Psychiatry Department's facilities of the University Hospital Complex of Huelva. A personal survey in paper form consisting of ten questions about IOT was carried out to each member of this study. RESULTS: 85.7% of clinicians know the current initiative that tries to carry out the legislative regulation of IOT, and 92.8% of them agree to such regulation. In this sense, 83.3% of them are against the fact that more coercive measures for the psychiatric patients such as the involuntary commitment or the civil incapacitation are regulated and IOT is not. On the one hand, 78.6% of the professionals in mental health believe that IOT is beneficial for the patients. Moreover, 95.2% of them think that is beneficial for their relatives, too. On the other hand, 78.6% of clinicians do not consider that the application of IOT to mentallyill patients is stigmatizing. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of clinicians think that the legislative regulation of involuntary outpatient treatment is necessary in Spain, and they think this treatment is beneficial not only for the patient but also for their family.

Restraints and seclusion in psychiatry: striking a balance between protection and coercion. Critical overview of international regulations and rulings.

Restraint and seclusion (R&S) measures in psychiatric settings are applied worldwide, despite poor scientific evidence to back up their effectiveness. The medical, ethical and medico-legal implications of coercive interventions are broad-ranging and multifaceted. The review aims to shed a light on the most relevant and meaningful standards that have been laid out by international treaties, supranational institutions (United Nations, Council of Europe, World Health Organization), scientific institutions (American Medical Association, Australian Department of Health), legislative bodies and courts of law. Several court cases are herein expounded upon, with a close focus on meaningful analysis, decisions and conclusions that have laid the groundwork for a different, more restrictive and more clearly defined approach towards R&S imposed upon psychiatric patients. It is reasonable to assume that changing norms, civil rights enforcement, court rulings and new therapeutic options have influenced the use of R&S to such an extent that such measures are among the most strictly regulated in psychiatric practice; health care providers should abide by a strict set of cautionary rules when making the decision to resort to R&S, which must never be put in place as a substitute for patient-centered therapeutic planning. Case law shows that R&S should only be weighed in terms of their effectiveness towards therapeutic goals. Being able to prove that R&S was employed as part of a therapeutic path rather than used to maintain order or to exact punishment may go a long way towards shielding operators against negligence lawsuits and litigation.

The social-psychiatric service and its role in compulsory hospitalization.

Coercive measures are a sensitive, much-discussed ethical and legal issue in the psychiatric context. Hence, the identification of their predictors and ways of prevention are of utmost importance. The present study aimed to determine the impact of the social-psychiatric services (SPS) in North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) on involuntary admissions according to the German Mental Health Act and to identify predictors for the reduction of these involuntary admissions. A dataset including details from 31 districts and 23 towns in NRW over a time period of 10 years (2005-2014) was analysed regarding the number of involuntary admissions, gender and age of admitted patients, and person/institution initiating the compulsory act. All 56 SPS in NRW were contacted for information on the number of clients/contacts, home visits, areas of responsibility and their involvement in involuntary admissions. Thirty SPS participated in the survey. We found a significant increase of involuntary admissions over time with significantly higher proportions of male patients and patients younger than 60 years in every year. Regarding the characteristics of SPS, a negative correlation between the number of clients contacting the SPS on their own initiative and low-income households was observed. Additionally, the number of clients contacting the SPS on their own initiative was significantly higher in districts/towns associated with lower involuntary admission rates. These data suggest that patient-based factors were of great importance in the context of involuntary admissions. Furthermore, the SPS and home treatment should be strengthened and intensified to achieve lower involuntary admission rates.

Detention, Capacity, and Treatment in the Mentally Ill-Ethical and Legal Challenges.

For individuals whose mental illness impair their ability to accept appropriate care-the depressed, acutely suicidal mother, or the psychotic lawyer too paranoid to eat any food-statutes exist to permit involuntary hospitalization, a temporary override of paternalistic benefice over personal autonomy. This exception to the primacy of personal autonomy at the core of bioethics has the aim of restoring the mental health of the temporarily incapacitated individual, and with it, their autonomy.

Coercion in psychiatry: is it right to involuntarily treat inpatients with capacity?

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.

Compulsory Admission in Hong Kong: Balance between Paternalism and Patient Liberty.

In Hong Kong, compulsory admission is governed by the Mental Health Ordinance Section 31 (detention of a patient under observation), Section 32 (extension of period of detention for such a patient), Section 36 (detention of certified patients), and the sections in Part IV for hospital order, transfer order, and removal order. Mental health professionals adopt both legal criteria and practice criteria for compulsory admission. The present study discusses the harm principle, the patient's decision-making capacity, the multi-axial framework for compulsory admission, and the balance between paternalism and patient liberty.

Return of the asylum.

Rates of involuntary admission are increasing in England. Personality disorder should be excluded as a criterion for involuntary admission; stronger restraint reduction programmes should be instigated; and involuntary care should be based on treating illness (something we can do) and not on predicting violence (something we cannot). Declaration of interest None.

Substance use disorder and compulsory commitment to care: a care-ethical decision-making framework.

In the era of deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric patients, steady or even increasing rates of compulsory commitment to care (CCC) are an intriguing phenomenon to analyse. From a clinical, legal and ethical perspective, CCC continues to be a controversial practice in psychiatry, and perhaps even more so when applied to patients with severe substance use disorder (SUD). Several reasons make it controversial. The lack of consensus about the benefits of CCC and professional disagreement about what mental illness and autonomy mean in the case of SUD make it difficult to apply ethically sound clinical decision-making in CCC. Also, the medico-legal framework underlying CCC use sometimes appears to foster the use of reductionist clinical evaluation. Layered on top of these issues is how stakeholders view coercion. There is a discrepancy between clinicians' and patients' perception of coercion, which leads to clinician-patient differences on whether CCC is necessary. Moreover, the way in which the evaluation is typically carried out influences patients' perception of coercion and subsequently their motivation for participating fully in treatment. In this article, we explore the value of care ethics, often applied to care practices such as nursing, when applied to more procedural medical practices, such as decision-making regarding CCC. The care-ethical approach views decision-making as part of a dynamic care process, within which the lived experience, interpretative dialogue and promotion of dignity are core features. Embracing this new framework means a paradigm shift in when the therapeutic relationship begins, namely, investing in it occurs while conducting an evaluation for a possible CCC procedure. Unlike in current typical evaluations, early cultivation of the therapeutic relationship enables the patient to participate in the definition of his needs, reduces perceived coercion and negative emotions and enhances treatment motivation. Finally, implications of this novel approach for clinical practice are formulated and discussed.