Do Community Treatment Orders in Psychiatry Stand Up to Principalism: Considerations Reflected through the Prism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Authors:
Giles Newton-Howes
Giles Newton-Howes
Imperial College
United Kingdom

J Law Med Ethics 2019 Mar;47(1):126-133

Giles Newton-Howes, B.A., B.Sc., M.B.Ch.B., M.R.C.Psych., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P., PostDip.C.B.T., Ph.D., is an associate professor in the department of psychological medicine, University of Otago, Wellington. He is seconded to Te-Upoko-me-Te-Karuo-Te-Ika, the public health service that delivers mental health care to the lower part of the North Island of New Zealand, where he works as a consultant psychiatrist.

Compulsory psychiatric treatment is the norm in many Western countries, despite the increasingly individualistic and autonomous approach to medical interventions. Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) are the singular best example of this, requiring community patients to accept a variety of interventions, both pharmacological and social, despite their explicit wish not to do so. The epidemiological, medical/treatment and legal intricacies of CTOs have been examined in detail, however the ethical considerations are less commonly considered. Principlism, the normative ethical code based on the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, underpins modern medical ethics. Conflict exists between patient centred commentary that reflects individual autonomy in decision making and the need for supported decision making, as described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the increasing use of such coercive measures, which undermines this principle. What appears to have been lost is the analysis of whether CTOs, or any coercive measure in psychiatric practice measures up against these ethical principles. We consider whether CTOs, as an exemplar of coercive psychiatric practice, measures up against the tenets of principalism in the modern context in order to further this debate.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073110519840492DOI Listing
March 2019
1 Read

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

psychiatric practice
8
rights persons
8
persons disabilities
8
decision making
8
practice measures
8
convention rights
8
treatment orders
8
community treatment
8
justice underpins
4
underpins modern
4
non-maleficence justice
4
autonomy beneficence
4
principles autonomy
4
modern medical
4
beneficence non-maleficence
4
medical ethics
4
centred commentary
4
commentary reflects
4
patient centred
4
exists patient
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Article in World Psychiatry
Thornicroft G. et al.
World Psychiatry 2002
Article in International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Dawson J. et al.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2006
Article in Journal of Law and Medicine
Callaghan S. et al.
Journal of Law and Medicine 2017
Article in American Journal of Psychiatry
Leff J. et al.
American Journal of Psychiatry 1996

Churchill R. et al.
2007

Lawton-Smith S. et al.
2005
Article in The British Journal of Psychiatry
Lawton-Smith S. et al.
The British Journal of Psychiatry 2008
Article in Psychiatric Bulletin
Burns T. et al.
Psychiatric Bulletin 2014
Article in The British Journal of Psychiatry
Newton-Howes G. et al.
The British Journal of Psychiatry 2017
Article in Psychiatric Services
Steadman H.J. et al.
Psychiatric Services 2001

Similar Publications