Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 469–476 | Cite as

Telepsychiatry and the meaning of in-person contact: a preliminary ethical appraisal

  • Aimee van Wynsberghe
  • Chris Gastmans
Scientific Contribution


Pioneering researchers claim that telepsychiatry presents the possibility of improving both the quality and quantity of patient care for populations in general as well as for those in rural and remote locations. The prevalence of, and literature on telepsychiatry has increased dramatically in the last decade, covering all aspects of research endeavors. However, little can be found on the topic of ethics in telepsychiatry. Using various clinical scenarios we may provide insight into the moral challenge in telepsychiatry—the lack of in-person contact. The difficulty is to articulate what the significance of in-person contact is and further, its meaning in the therapeutic relationship between the patient and the physician. Using the personalist perspective and related philosophical approaches we may sketch an idea of the patient as person, existentially considered as a relational and bodily human being. By applying Brennan’s model for health technology assessment we may evaluate the morally troubling aspect of telepsychiatry—a lack of in-person contact—on this philosophical sketch of the person. This consideration is crucial when developing policies to guide the use of telepsychiatry in order to maintain the quality of care.


Telepsychiatry Ethics Care Human person Patient–physician relationship 



Special thanks to Jeffery Willet for his insight.


  1. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brennan, J. 1977. The method of ethical inquiry. In The open-texture of moral concepts, part 2, ed. J.M. Brennan, 88-149. New York: Barnes and Noble Import Division.Google Scholar
  3. Buber, M. 1958. I and Thou. Edinburgh: T. and Clark. 2nd edition. (trans: Smith, Ronald Gregor). New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
  4. Bynum, T., and S. Rogerson. 1996. Global information ethics, special edition. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (2): 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, H. 1993. High tech vs. ‘high touch’: The impact of medical technology on patient care. In Sociomedical perspectives on patient care, ed. J.M. Clair and R.M. Allman, 83–95. Kentucky, MA: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  6. Frueh, C., S. Deitsch, A. Santos, et al. 2000. Procedural and methodological issues in telepsychiatry research and program development. Psychiatric Services 51 (12): 1522–1527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gastmans, C., and J. De Lepeleire. 2009. Living to the bitter end? A personalist approach to euthanasia in persons with severe dementia. Bioethics (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Hauerwas, S. 1983. The peaceable Kingdom. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  9. Hyler, S., and D. Gangure. 2004. Legal and ethical challenges in telepsychiatry. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 10 (4): 272–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyler, S., S. Gangure, and S. Betchelder. 2005. Can telepsychiatry replace in-person psychiatric assessments? A review and meta-analysis of comparison studies. CNS Spectrums 10: 401–413.Google Scholar
  11. Janssens, L. 1980–1981. Artificial insemination: Ethical considerations. Louvain Studies 8: 3–29.Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy, C., and P. Yellowlees. 2003. The effectiveness of telepsychiatry measured using the Health Nation Outcome Scale and the Mental Health Inventory. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 9: 12–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith, Colin). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1963. The structure of behavior (trans: Fischer, Alden L.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Merleau-Ponty, M. 2004. In The visible and the invisible, ed. Thomas Baldwin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, E. 2003. The technical and interpersonal aspects of telemedicine: Effects on doctor-patient communication. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 9: 1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Monnier, J., R. Knapp, and C. Frueh. 2003. Recent advances in telepsychiatry: An updated review. Psychiatric Services 54 (12): 1604–1609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Norman, S. 2006. The use of telemedicine in psychiatry. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 13: 771–777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Reilly, R., J. Bishop, K. Maddox, et al. 2007. Is telepsychiatry equivalent to face-to-face psychiatry? Results from a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Psychiatric Services 58 (6): 836–843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pamela, W., and M. Mackert. 2005. Addressing telehealth’s toremost barrier: Provider as initial gatekeeper. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare 21 (4): 517–521.Google Scholar
  21. Pellegrino, E. 1985. The caring ethic. The relation of physician to patient. In Caring, curing, coping. Nurse, physician, patient relationships, ed. A. Bishop and J. Scudder, 8–30. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ruskin, R., M. Silver-Aylaian, M. Kling, et al. 2004. Treatment outcomes in depression: Comparison of remote treatment through telepsychiatry to in-person treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry 161: 1471–1476.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schotsmans, P. 1988. Responsible involvement and conscientious freedom. A relational approach to medical ethics. In Personalist morals. Essays in honor of professor Louis Janssens, ed. J. Selling, 167–184. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schotsmans, P. 1998. Ownership of the body. A personalist perspective. In Ownership of the human body. Philosophical considerations on the use of the human body and its parts in healthcare, ed. H. ten Have and J. Welie, 159–172. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Schotsmans, P. 1999. Personalism in medical ethics. Ethical Perspectives 6 (1): 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Selling, J. ed. 1988. Personalist morals. Essays in honor of professor Louis Janssens. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Selling, J. 1998. The human person. In Christian ethics. An introduction, ed. B. Hoose, 95–109. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  28. Shore, J., D. Hilty, and P. Yelloless. 2007. Emergency management guidelines for telepsychiatry. General Hospital Psychiatry 29: 199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Simpson, J., S. Doze, D. Urness, et al. 2001. Evaluation of a routine telepsychiatry service. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 7: 90–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh, S., and R. Wachter. 2008. Perspectives on medical outsourcing and telemedicine: Rough edges in a flat world? New England Journal of Medicine 358 (15): 1622–1627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh, S., D. Arya, and T. Peters. 2007. Accuracy of telepsychiatric assessment of new routine outpatient referrals. BMC Psychiatry 7: 55–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang, S., and D. Helmeste. 2000. Digital psychiatry. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 54: 1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. van Wynsberghe, A., and C. Gastmans. 2008. Telesurgery: An ethical appraisal. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: e22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Vanlaere, L., and C. Gastmans. 2007. A normative approach to care ethics: The contribution of the Louvain tradition of personalism. In New pathways for European bioethics, ed. C. Gastmans, K. Dierickx, H. Nys, and P. Schotsmans, 99–118. Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  35. Zaylor, C. 1999. Clinical outcomes in telepsychiatry. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 5 (1): 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of MedicineCatholic University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations