Current appeal system for those detained in England and Wales under the Mental Health Act needs reform.

The approach to managing the involuntary detention of people suffering from psychiatric conditions can be divided into those with clinicians at the forefront of decision-making and those who rely heavily on the judiciary. The system in England and Wales takes a clinical approach where doctors have widespread powers to detain and treat patients involuntarily. A protection in this system is the right of the individual to challenge a decision to deprive them of their liberty or treat them against their will. This protection is provided by the First-tier Tribunal; however, the number of successful appeals is low. In this paper, the system of appeal in England and Wales is outlined. This is followed by a discussion of why so few patients successfully appeal their detention with the conclusion that the current system is flawed. A number of recommendations about how the system might be reformed are offered.

Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers.

This document is designed to give guidance on assessing researchers in bioethics/medical ethics. It is intended to assist members of selection, confirmation and promotion committees, who are required to assess those conducting bioethics research when they are not from a similar disciplinary background. It does not attempt to give guidance on the quality of bioethics research, as this is a matter for peer assessment. Rather it aims to give an indication of the type, scope and amount of research that is the expected in this field. It does not cover the assessment of other activities such as teaching, policy work, clinical ethics consultation and so on, but these will be mentioned for additional context. Although it mentions the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF), it is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the place of bioethics in the REF.

Ethics virtual patients: a new pedagogical tool for educators?

Virtual patient (VP) cases are interactive computer simulations of real life scenarios that have been used in medical education for over a decade. They are popular with students and staff alike and have been shown to improve knowledge retention, clinical reasoning and decision-making skills. Ethics virtual patient (EVP) cases are interactive computer simulations of real life scenarios which have a substantive ethical component. They can also contain significant legal and professionalism components. EVP cases have only recently been used in medical education, but there is growing evidence to suggest that medical students find them interesting, engaging and helpful. This paper will provide a brief overview of the way in which EVP cases have been used at St George's, University of London and explore the pedagogical rationale for using these cases to teach ethics, law and professionalism to medical students.

Ethical implications of HIV self-testing.

In April 2015, the first legally approved HIV self-testing kit went on sale in the UK-except Northern Ireland where they remain illegal. These tests allow individuals to test their HIV status and read the result in the privacy of their own home, much like a home pregnancy test. This paper explores the ethical implications of HIV self-testing. We conclude that there are no strong ethical objections to self-testing being made widely available in the UK. Pretest counselling for an HIV test is not an ethical necessity, and self-testing has the potential to increase early diagnosis of HIV infection and thus improve prognosis and reduce ongoing transmission. Self-testing kits might also empower people and promote autonomy by allowing people to dictate the terms on which they test their HIV status. We accept that there are some potential areas of concern. These include the possibility of user error with the tests, and the concern that individuals may not present to health services following a reactive result. False negatives have the potential to cause harm if the 'window period' is not understood, and false positives might produce psychological distress. There is, however, little evidence to suggest that self-testing kits will cause widespread harm, and we argue that the only way to properly evaluate whether they do cause significant harm is to carefully evaluate their use, now that they are available on the market.

Liberty or death; don't tread on me.

Many jurisdictions require cyclists to wear bicycle helmets. The UK is currently not one of these. However, an increasing number of interest groups, including the British Medical Association, want to change the status quo. They argue that mandatory cycle helmet laws will reduce the incidence of head injuries and that this will be both good for cyclists (because they will suffer fewer head injuries) and good for society (because the burden of having to treat cyclists suffering from head injuries will be reduced). In this paper we argue against this position. We suggest that cycle helmets may not be especially effective in reducing head injuries and we suggest that the imposition of such a restrictive law would violate people's freedom and reduce their autonomy. We also argue that those who accept such a restrictive law would be committed to supporting further legislation which would force many other groups - including pedestrians - to take fewer risks with their health. We conclude that cycle helmet legislation should not be enacted in the UK unless, perhaps, it is restricted to children.

Ancillary care duties: the demands of justice.

Ancillary care is care that research participants need that is not essential to make the research safe or scientifically valid and is not needed to remedy injuries that eventuate as a result of the research project itself. Ancillary care duties have recently been defended on the grounds of beneficence, entrustment, utility and consent. Justice has also been mentioned as a possible basis of ancillary care duties, but little attention has been paid to this approach. In this paper, the author seeks to rectify this omission by arguing that ancillary care duties can be based on a principle of justice as rectification.

Isolation of patients in psychiatric hospitals in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: An ethical, legal, and practical challenge.

Psychiatric inpatients are particularly vulnerable to the transmission and effects of COVID-19. As such, healthcare providers should implement measures to prevent its spread within mental health units, including adequate testing, cohorting, and in some cases, the isolation of patients. Respiratory isolation imposes a significant limitation on an individual's right to liberty, and should be accompanied by appropriate legal safeguards. This paper explores the implications of respiratory isolation in English law, considering the applicability of the common law doctrine of necessity, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983, and public health legislation. We then interrogate the practicality of currently available approaches by applying them to a series of hypothetical cases. There are currently no 'neat' or practicable solutions to the problem of lawfully isolating patients on mental health units, and we discuss the myriad issues with both mental health and public health law approaches to the problem. We conclude by making some suggestions to policymakers.

Should psychiatrists 'Google' their patients?

Since its beginnings in the 1980s the internet has come to shape our everyday lives, but doctors still seem rather afraid of it. This anxiety may be explained by the fact that researchers and regulatory bodies focus less on the way that the internet can be used to enhance clinical work and more on the potential and perceived risks that this technology poses in terms of boundary violations and accidental breaches of confidentiality. Some aspects of the internet's impact on medicine have been better researched than others, for example, whether email communication, social media and teleconferencing psychotherapy could be used to improve the delivery of care. However, few authors have considered the specific issue of searching online for information about patients and much of the guidance published by regulatory organisations eludes this issue. In this article we provide clinical examples where the question 'should I Google the patient?' may arise and present questions for future research.