Insight and the Capacity to Refuse Treatment with Electroconvulsive Therapy.

All Australian jurisdictions have statutory provisions governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. Cases in which the patient lacks insight into their psychotic illness and need for treatment and refuses to have ECT are particularly poignant. In Re ICO [2023] QMHC 1, the Queensland Mental Health Court considered whether a patient with a treatment-resistant psychotic illness had decision-making capacity to refuse ECT. The Court also considered whether the patient had been provided with an adequate explanation of the proposed treatment including the expected benefits, risks and adverse effects of ECT. As well as deciding whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances, the Court considered whether there were alternative treatments including another trial of the oral antipsychotic clozapine. This article reviews issues relating to lack of insight in persons with psychotic illness and relevant considerations for determining capacity to decline ECT.

Insight and capacity to consent to electroconvulsive therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To critically examine a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court that found that the Mental Health Tribunal and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal erred in the application of the capacity test in the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) and that compulsory electroconvulsive therapy would infringe upon the human rights of two patients who had no insight into their chronic schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: After considering the concepts of insight and capacity to consent to treatment, the paper concludes that the decision in NJE and PBU v Mental Health Tribunal [2018] VSC 564 is problematic clinically.