Health Care Analysis

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 309–319 | Cite as

For the Protection of Others

  • Simona Giordano

Abstract

This paper investigates legal and moral justificationsof coerced treatment for psychiatric patients who aredetained on the grounds that they may harm others.While the general issues concerning compulsorytreatment and detention have been widely canvassed, ithas seldom, if ever, been noticed that the moralreasons that we may have to detain a person whoappears to be dangerous to others are different fromthe moral reasons we may have to treat him or her. For example, it has not been noticed that compulsorydetention and compulsory treatment are supported bytwo different moral principles, namely the Principleof Harm and the Principle of Beneficence, and,therefore, that the arguments which support compulsorydetention do not also support compulsorytreatment. The conceptual confusion between legitimacyof compulsory detention and legitimacy of compulsorytreatment is exacerbated by the ambiguous wordingutilised in S 3 of the UK Mental Health Act, whichimplies that treatment may be necessary for theprotection of others. Failure to pay attention to these distinctions has led to tragic consequences, in terms of violations of individual autonomy and in terms of public safety.

protection of others compulsory hospitalisation compulsory treatment psychopathic disorder the value of autonomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous (1991) Treatment Outline for Antisocial Personality Disorder: The Quality Assurance Project [review]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 25, 541–547.Google Scholar
  2. APA (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, 4th edn. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, F. 60.2.Google Scholar
  3. Brazier, M. (1992) Medicine, Patients and the Law, 2nd edn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, A.E. and Brock, D.W. (1989) Deciding for Others, the Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–317.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Health and Social Security (1987) Mental Health Act 1983, Memorandum on Parts I to VI, VIII and X. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Health and Welsh Office (1998) Mental Health Act 1983. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  7. Engelhardt, H.T. (1996) The Foundation of Bioethics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Feinberg, J. (1984) The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gazzetta Ufficiale (1934) R.D. (Royal Decree) 27 July 1934, n. 1265. In: Gazzetta Ufficiale 9 August 1934, n. 186.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, R.M. (1993) The Philosophical Basis of Psychiatric Ethics. In R.M. Hare (Ed.), Essays on Bioethics (pp. 15–30). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, J. (1985) The Value of Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hoggett, B. (1996) Mental Health Law, 4th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell, p. 8. http://www.IMHL.COMGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyna, Z. Bezchlibnyk-Butler, Jeffries J.J. and Barry A.M. (1994) Clinical Handbook of Psychotropic Drugs, 4th edn. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  14. Law 833. In: Gazzetta Ufficiale 23 December 1978.Google Scholar
  15. Lyttle, J. (1986) Mental Disorder, Its Care and Treatment, 2nd edn. London: Bailliere Tindal.Google Scholar
  16. Marella, G.L. and Rossi P. (1996) Accertamenti e trattamenti sanitari obbligatori per malati di mente nelle legislazioni nazionali. Difesa sociale 2, 97–107.Google Scholar
  17. Mason, J.K. and McCall Smith, R.A. (1999) Law and Medical Ethics, 5th edn. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  18. McHale, J. and Fox, M. (1997) Health Care Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  19. Mental Health Act Review Expert Group (1999), Draft Proposals for the New Mental Health Act, 15 April. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  20. Mill, J.S. (1991) On Liberty. In J.S. Mill (Ed.), On Liberty and other Essays (pp. 106–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ravndan, E. and Vaglum, P. (1991) Changes in Antisocial Aggressiveness during treatment in a Hierarchical Therapeutic Community: A Perspective Study of Personality Changes. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinava 84, 524–530.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers v. Okin 487 F Suppl. 1342 I.DMass, 1979 and Rennie v. Klein, Civil Action n. 77-2624 Federal District Court of New Jersey, 14 Sept. 1983.Google Scholar
  23. Roth, L.H., Meisel, C. and Lidz, W. (1977) Test of Competency to Consent to Treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry 134, 279–284.Google Scholar
  24. Secretary of State for Health (1999) Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, Proposal for Consultation. London: Stationery Office, Chapter 9, para 2. The Committee considers that the reported definition of treatment (see also S 145 of the MHA), “combined with the notion of treatability has given rise to an unfortunate lack of clarity”.Google Scholar
  25. Stein, E. and Brown, J.D. (1991) Group Therapy in a Forensic Setting. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 36, 718–722.Google Scholar
  26. The Times, 24 Oct. 1998, p. 2.Google Scholar
  27. WHO (1994) International Statistical Classification of Diseases ICD-10. Geneva: WHO, F. 60.Google Scholar
  28. Wong, J.G. et. al. (1999) Capacity to Make Healthcare Decisions: Its Importance in Clinical Practice. Psychological Medicine 29, 437–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Giordano
    • 1
  1. 1.The Centre for Social Ethics and PolicyThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations