Internamiento involuntario vs. Retención ilegal en pacientes contrastorno mental grave / Involuntary internment vs. Illegal retention in patients with serious mental disorder

Aunque una buena actitud hacia la terapia y el cumplimiento de la misma son claves para el éxito del tratamiento, en ciertas situaciones el uso de medidas coercitivas en personas con trastornos mentales es la única forma de prevenir daños graves al paciente y a otras personas. La decisión de utilizar estas medidas, como el internamiento involuntario, es un desafío para los médicos, ya que tienen que lidiar no solo con la voluntad del paciente y de sus familiares, que se encuentran en una situación emocional desbordada, sino también con el conocimiento de la normativa vigente, especialmente complejas. Para proteger los derechos del paciente en estas situaciones difíciles y del personal clínico, es esencial que el mismo conozca los límites de su actuación en el marco del procedimiento legal. Por ello, se necesitan más estudios en la materia, que ofrezcan conclusiones contrastadas con respecto a las diferencias entre el internamiento involuntario y la retención ilegal.(AU)

Even though a good attitude towards therapy and adherence are key to an effective treatment, in certain circumstances the use of coercive actions in people with mental disorders is the only way to prevent serious harm to the patient and to others. The choice to use coercive measures, such as involuntary internment, is a challenge for doctors, since not only do they have to deal with the patient and their relatives who are in a highly emotional situation, but there are also complex legal regulations. To defend the rights of patients in these difficult situations, and to avoid legal consequences for clinical staff due to illegal acts, it is essential that staff are familiar with all of the relevant legal rules and procedures. Further studies are warranted to obtain clear conclusions regarding differences between involuntary internment and illegal retention.(AU)

Guidelines for determining restorability of competency to stand trial and recommendations for involuntary treatment.

Over 50,000 defendants are referred for competency to stand trial evaluations each year in the United States (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018). Approximately 20% of those individuals are found by courts to be incompetent and are referred for "restoration" or remediation (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, 4th edn. New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018; Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1991;19:63-9). The majority of those incompetent defendants meet criteria for psychotic illnesses (J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35:34-43). Forensic mental health professionals frequently have such patients/defendants decline recommended treatment with psychotropic medication. For a significant minority of defendants diagnosed with psychotic disorders, treatment with medication is thought to be necessary to restore their competency to stand trial. Without psychiatric intervention to restore competency, defendants may be held for lengthy and costly hospitalizations while criminal proceedings are suspended. In these situations, clinicians are guided by the Supreme Court decision, Sell v. United States (2003). The Sell opinion describes several clinical issues courts must consider when determining whether a defendant can be treated involuntarily solely for the purpose of restoring his/her competency. This paper offers some guidance to clinicians and evaluators who are faced with making recommendations or decisions about involuntary treatment. Using a question and answer format, the authors discuss data that support a decision to request, or not request, court authorization for involuntary treatment. Specifically, eight questions are posed for forensic evaluators to consider in determining the prognosis or viability of successful treatment and restoration. Finally, a clinical vignette is also presented to highlight important factors to consider in Sell-related evaluations.

[Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Involuntary admission yes, involuntary treatment no]. / Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): internamiento involuntario sí, tratamiento obligatorio no.

We had the opportunity to know a judicial decision in relation to a nonagenarian COVID-19 patient, which is clarifying regarding the complex issue of involuntary admission and involuntary treatment of the elderly. The judge authorized the involuntary admission but denied the possibility of imposing medical treatment against the will of the patient. This situation invites us to review the different types of involuntary admission that our legal system provides and how involuntary medical treatment is regulated according to its purpose and the patient's ability to decide. In the field of public health, the determining element to be able to impose any sanitary measure against the will of the patient is the risk to the health of the population. In the case presented, the judge rejects the possibility of authorizing medical treatment for not contributing anything from the point of view of public health. However, it does authorize involuntary admission as it is essential to guarantee isolation.

Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (CRPD) has been instrumental for initiating and shaping the reform of mental health legislation in many countries, including the eight Australian jurisdictions. Multiple approaches have been proposed to assess and monitor the compliance of States Parties' mental health legislation with the CRPD, and to evaluate its success in protecting and promoting the human rights of people with disabilities. This article reports an effort to index the impact of legislation on human rights by measuring changes in the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders applied to people with mental illness after the introduction of CRPD influenced mental health legislation in the Australian state of Queensland. We found that despite reforms intended to enhance patient autonomy, the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders increased after implementation of the new legislation. Possible reasons behind this unintended consequence of the legislative reform may include a lack of systematized voluntary alternatives to compulsory treatment, a paternalistic and restrictive culture in mental health services and risk aversion in clinicians and society. We recommend that the reforms in mental health policy as well as legislation need to go further in order to achieve the goals embodied in the human rights framework of the CRPD.

Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of children and adolescents in Northern Greece: Retrospective epidemiological study and related ethical issues.

The aim of the present study was to investigate epidemiological data on involuntary hospitalization of underage patients in psychiatric settings and illustrate the related ethical issues. The medical records of 131 involuntary psychiatric admissions of children and adolescents ordered by public prosecutor between 2005 and 2014 were examined carefully. The examined variables involved the place of origin, the place of residence of minors after discharge, the length of stay in hospitals, the discharge diagnosis, the rate at which the minors were introduced to police and other authorities before their hospitalization, and the results of the neuropsychological assessment (WISC II). Data were analyzed by SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The mean age of the minors was 14.19 years (Male: Female ratio; 1.6:1). First, a high rate of incidences of compulsory admissions was found [5-year period (2005-2009):(2010-2014) ratio; 1:1.85] most likely due to organizational factors, which, however, could have been avoided in a more patient-oriented healthcare system. It is most likely that the criteria used for making decisions in favor of compulsory admissions were disproportionately (unduly) broad. In parallel, it was observed that, during 2010-2014, despite the increase in the rate of the prosecutor's orders, there was a decrease in the duration of coercive hospitalization of minors in psychiatric departments of hospitals in comparison to the period 2005-2009 [5-year period duration of hospitalization (2005-2009):(2010-2014) ratio; 2.33:1]. Furthermore, family was found likely to wield considerable influence on the decision-making for compulsory admissions. In addition, the effectiveness of a compulsory hospitalization of minors in a child and adolescent psychiatry department was found largely dependent on the type of the underlying mental health problem. In that respect, low rates of recidivism (7.6%) indicated that the measure of involuntary hospitalization was necessary and effective. It was also observed that the short-term removal of the minor from the family environment was a potentially relieving strategy for both the child and the family apart from the need for therapeutic intervention. The paper concludes by highlighting the role of a multi-stakeholder decision-making process (which entails shared decision-making as an integral component of providing mental healthcare to minors) in facilitating a decision about involuntary psychiatric hospitalization that is proportional and respectful to patient autonomy.

The misuse of "duty of care" as justification for non-consensual coercive treatment.

The duty of care concept is a common law legal principle which underpins all healthcare interactions. However, evidence within the Australian context suggests misuse of this common law principle as a justification for non-consensual coercive treatment. Misuse seems to occur particularly where patients have impaired decision-making capacity and/or refuse treatment. In this article, we discuss the emerging evidence of misuse, which arguably reflects healthcare practitioner confusion between the doctrines of 'duty of care' and 'necessity', and posit that cognisance of lawful substitute consent processes are lacking. We then discuss the concept of duty of care as an obligation, as opposed to a power, before presenting the elements of a valid consent and legislation relating to substitute consent, which allow health practitioners to proceed with treatment. We conclude this article with a discussion of the circumstances where treatment may be given without consent.

Ferguson v. City of Charleston Redux: Motivated Reasoning and Coercive Interventions in Pregnancy.

Criminalization of perinatal substance use disorder and other coercive interventions in pregnancy (such as forced cesarean delivery or involuntary hospitalization for bed rest) directly affect the well-being of children and their families and, potentially, of all women of reproductive capacity. Untenable legal and policy approaches that occasion such incursions not only persist but affect a growing number of women. They are antithetical to healthy pregnancies, healthy children, and healthy families; they have the potential to reduce prenatal care seeking, divert attention and resources away from critical mental health and maternal and child support services, and epigenetically affect maternal and infant bonding. Punitive and coercive interventions contravene long-established guidance by professional associations that advocate for public health approaches and ethical frameworks to guide practice. Harmful policies persist because of motivated reasoning by clinicians, members of the judiciary, and ill-informed legislators who rely on personal experience and anecdote rather than evidence to fashion policy. Compounding the problem are inadequate substance use treatment resources and professional associations that choose not to hold their members accountable for violating their ethical obligations to their patients. Pediatricians must advocate for the cessation of coercive interventions within their institutions and their larger communities. All health care professionals should collaborate at the local, state, and national level to provide policymakers and legislators with data emphasizing the negative effects of punitive and coercive policies aimed at pregnant women and their children.

Everything you need to know about deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Established as an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the deprivation of liberty safeguards were introduced to ensure that anyone who lacks capacity to consent to their care, and was being deprived of their liberty, has rights equivalent to those held under the Mental Health Act 1983. These rights include someone to oversee any deprivation of liberty, the right of appeal and the guarantee of review of appeal in a timely manner. This article outlines how deprivation of liberty safeguards work, how a deprivation of liberty safeguards is applied for and obtained, what to discuss with the next of kin, and some special circumstances to consider. It also provides information about the criteria by which deprivation of liberty safeguards applications are assessed and the process by which this is done. This provides an overview for junior doctors working in secondary care, to increase their knowledge and confidence when patients require a deprivation of liberty safeguards application.

[No scientific lower threshold for compulsory vaccination]. / Geen wetenschappelijke ondergrens voor verplicht vaccineren.

The national vaccination rate in young children in the Netherlands has decreased in recent years. This has led to social and political discussions, for instance about compulsory vaccination for children in child-care. The national commission on child-care and vaccination has advised that vaccination should be made compulsory when the rate of vaccination has declined to a pre-determined lower threshold, to be determined by the government. A frequently quoted lower threshold is 95%. The idea behind this is the concept of a critical vaccination rate, a threshold needed for elimination of an infection in a large, well-mixed population. In this article we argue why the critical vaccination rate does not offer a scientific basis for a lower threshold to the national vaccination rate.

[Consequences of the temporaneous lack of admissibility of involuntary medication in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg: not less drugs, but longer deprivation of liberty]. / Auswirkungen der vorübergehend fehlenden Genehmigungsfähigkeit für Zwangsbehandlung in Baden-Württemberg: nicht weniger Medikamente, aber längere Freiheitsentziehung.

BACKGROUND: After the decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 2011 and the Federal Supreme Court in 2012, involuntary treatment was not approvable for a period of seven months in the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Previous analyses of routine data had demonstrated that at that time in a rather small group of patients, aggressive incidents and coercive interventions had significantly increased and then decreased to the previous level after the new legislation came into force. The changes concerned a relatively small group of involuntary patients. Based on an analysis of medical charts in 6 hospitals, this study aimed to investigate 1) whether refusal of prescribed medication became more frequent in that period and 2) how frequently antipsychotic medication was administered without coercion. METHOD: We conducted a longitudinal intra-individual comparison and included all of the patients with schizophrenic and manic disorders who had been admitted in the period without the option of involuntary treatment and in a defined control period one year before as well (N = 174). Thus, study group and control group were identical. RESULTS: In the period without the option of involuntary treatment, patients remained involuntarily committed significantly more frequently (+ 26 %) but only insignificantly longer. Length of stay and number of mechanical restraints remained unchanged, number of seclusions doubled, and some patients could not leave the ward for long periods of time and had frequent readmissions. Persistent refusal of prescribed medication was significantly more frequent (+ 130 %, p < .001). However, the percentage of patients who received an antipsychotic drug during their hospital stay did not differ (96.0 vs. 96.6 %). The dosage at discharge as calculated in chlorpromazine units tended to be even higher during the period without option of involuntary treatment (+ 7.9 %, p = .06). All differences concerned both voluntary and involuntary patients. CONCLUSIONS: Without the option of involuntary treatment, persistent refusal of medication and different forms of deprivation of liberty increased. Nevertheless, oral antipsychotic treatment was realized in nearly all cases until discharge.

An Ethicolegal Analysis of Involuntary Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders.

Supply-side interventions such as prescription drug monitoring programs, "pill mill" laws, and dispensing limits have done little to quell the burgeoning opioid crisis. An increasingly popular demand-side alternative to these measures - now adopted by 38 jurisdictions in the USA and 7 provinces in Canada - is court-mandated involuntary commitment and treatment. In Massachusetts, for example, Part I, Chapter 123, Section 35 of the state's General Laws allows physicians, spouses, relatives, and police officers to petition a court to involuntarily commit and treat a person whose alcohol or drug abuse poses a likelihood of serious harm. This paper explores the ethical underpinnings of this law as a case study for others. First, we highlight the procedural and substantive standards of Section 35 and evaluate the application of the law in practice, including the frequency with which it has been invoked and outcomes. We then use this background to inform an ethical critique of the law. Specifically, we argue that the infringement of autonomy and privacy associated with involuntary intervention under Section 35 is not currently justified on the grounds of a lack of evidenced benefits and a risk of significant of harm. Further ethical concerns also arise from a lack of standard of care provided under the Section 35 pathway. Based on this analysis, we advance four recommendations for change to mitigate these ethical shortcomings.

Use of Force in Somatic Treatment of Adults in Denmark.

The article provides a critical analysis of the new Danish Act on Use of Force in Somatic Treatment of Adults with a Permanently Impaired Ability to Give Consent (FTAC, Act no. 655 of 8 June 2017), which covers adults unable to give an informed consent. The rules in the Act are included in the legal framework governing medical treatment with and without consent in Denmark, and the article draws on international human rights in connection with the subject matter. The aim of the article is also to highlight the grey areas that still exist despite the new rules and to provide legal argumentation for solutions to the issues that can arise in these legal grey areas.

Involuntary Treatment and Quality of Life.

The issues centering on the involuntary treatment of severe and enduring anorexia nervosa are daunting. There is a general consensus that people with this illness are likely to have high levels of disability, be underemployed/unemployed, and receive welfare. Anorexia nervosa shows a similar degree of impairment to those with depression or schizophrenia on quality-of-life measures. It is possible to mount a cogent argument as to why a rehabilitation model of care needs to be considered for those with persistent eating disorders. In such cases, harm minimization and improved quality of life should be prioritized and involuntary treatment used judiciously.

Surveying the Geneva impasse: Coercive care and human rights.

The United Nations human rights system has in recent years been divided on the question as to whether coercive care interventions, including coercive psychiatric care, can ever be justified under UN human rights standards. Some within the UN human rights community hold that coercive care can comply with human rights standards, provided that the coercive intervention is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve certain approved aims, and that appropriate legal safeguards are in place. Others have held that coercive care is never justified. Disagreement over this issue has produced an impasse in the UN human rights system. We survey the impasse with particular attention to the legal arguments that inform the divergent positions. In doing so we introduce a distinction among a variety of different 'abolitionist' positions regarding coercive care, and draw a distinction between 'non-consensual' and 'coercive' treatment. We conclude with three proposals for moving beyond the current impasse.

Variations in patterns of involuntary hospitalisation and in legal frameworks: an international comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Rising annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation have been reported in England and some other higher-income countries, but the reasons for this increase are unclear. We aimed to describe the extent of variations in involuntary annual hospitalisation rates between countries, to compare trends over time, and to explore whether variations in legislation, demographics, economics, and health-care provision might be associated with variations in involuntary hospitalisation rates. METHODS: We compared annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation between 2008 and 2017 (where available) for 22 countries across Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. We also obtained data on national legislation, demographic and economic factors (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, prevalence of inequality and poverty, and the percentage of populations who are foreign born, members of ethnic minorities, or living in urban settings), and service characteristics (health-care spending and provision of psychiatric beds and mental health staff). Annual incidence data were obtained from government sources or published peer-reviewed literature. FINDINGS: The median rate of involuntary hospitalisation was 106·4 (IQR 58·5 to 150·9) per 100 000 people, with Austria having the highest (282 per 100 000 individuals) and Italy the lowest (14·5 per 100 000 individuals) most recently available rates. We observed no relationship between annual involuntary hospitalisation rates and any characteristics of the legal framework. Higher national rates of involuntary hospitalisation were associated with a larger number of beds (ß coefficient 0·65, 95% CI 0·10 to 1·20, p=0·021), higher GDP per capita purchasing power parity (ß coefficient 1·84, 0·30 to 3·38, p=0·019), health-care spending per capita (ß coefficient 15·92, 3·34 to 28·49, p=0·013), the proportion of foreign-born individuals in the population (ß coefficient 7·32, 0·44 to 14·19, p=0·037), and lower absolute poverty (ß coefficient -11·5, -22·6 to -0·3, p=0·044). There was no evidence of an association between annual involuntary hospitalisation incidence and any other demographic, economic, or health-care indicator. INTERPRETATION: Variations between countries were large and for the most part unexplained. We found a higher annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation to be associated with a lower rate of absolute poverty, with higher GDP and health-care spending per capita, a higher proportion of foreign-born individuals in a population, and larger numbers of inpatient beds, but limitations in ecological research must be noted, and the associations were weak. Other country-level demographic, economic, and health-care delivery indicators and characteristics of the legislative system appeared to be unrelated to annual involuntary hospitalisation rates. Understanding why involuntary hospitalisation rates vary so much could be advanced through a more fine-grained analysis of the relationships between involuntary hospitalisation and social context, clinical practice, and how legislation is implemented in practice. FUNDING: Commissioned by the Department of Health and funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) via the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit.

A Comparison Between the Involuntary and Voluntary Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder in a Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine if there was a significant difference between veterans who received treatment voluntarily versus involuntarily in regard to length of sobriety. METHOD: A sample of 120 veterans being treated for alcohol use disorder in a residential rehabilitation treatment program was used for this study. Veterans who were admitted under recommendation by court order (n = 60) were matched with veterans who were admitted without recommendation of court order (n = 60). Success of the program was determined by the number of days of sobriety postdischarge. RESULTS: The study revealed that there was no significant difference between types of motivation for residential treatment (i.e., voluntary vs. involuntary treatment) and length of sobriety for veterans with alcohol use disorder posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings revealed that there was no significant relationship when comparing types of motivation for treatment in a residential treatment program for veterans in regard to length of sobriety posttreatment. Therefore, a veteran's motivation for treatment may not necessarily be an accurate indicator of treatment outcomes (i.e., length of sobriety posttreatment) for residential treatment settings.

Involuntary Psychotropic Treatment in the Correctional System: Revisiting the Legal Standards.

Correctional facilities are obligated to provide psychotropic medications, as part of standard psychiatric care, to inmates with serious mental illness. The right to refuse such medication treatment has become one of the most important and contested areas of legal regulation of correctional mental health. This article will focus on the three cases that have come before the U.S. Supreme Court thus far, as well as their implications for future medicolegal directions in pursuing involuntary treatment.