Advertisement

Coercion to Inpatient Treatment

Initial Results and Implications for Assertive Treatment in the Community
  • John Monahan
  • Steven K. Hoge
  • Charles W. Lidz
  • Marlene M. Eisenberg
  • Nancy S. Bennett
  • William P. Gardner
  • Edward P. Mulvey
  • Loren H. Roth
Part of the The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology book series (SSSC)

Abstract

Debate over the role of coercion in mental hospital admission frequently invokes the prospective patient’s moral right to decision-making autonomy and individual dignity (e.g., Blanch & Parrish, 1993; Wertheimer, 1993). But empirical arguments for or against coercion are often pressed as well. The empirical issue most often raised is whether coerced treatment “works.” On one side, some patient advocates argue that the alleged benefits of treatment to the patient or others can be negated by patients’ feelings of alienation and dissatisfaction, as a result of which patients become unlikely to comply with treatment as soon as the coercion is lifted (cf. National Center for State Courts, 1986). Even if coerced treatment benefits those on whom it is imposed, other prospective patients may be deterred from seeking treatment voluntarily for fear that they too will be committed (Campbell & Schraiber, 1989). On the other side, a recent report by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1994), though it grants that “there seems to be a kind of embarrassment about situations in which the patient did not enter treatment entirely on his or her own initiative” (p. x), concludes that “sometimes involuntary psychiatric treatment is necessary, can be effective, and can lead to freedom from the constraints of illness. Conversely, tight restrictions against coercive treatment can have disastrous consequences” (p. 43).

Keywords

Inpatient Treatment Mental Hospital Admission Process Involuntary Admission Outpatient Commitment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bennett, N., Lidz, C., Monahan, J., Mulvey, E., Hoge, S., Roth, L., and Gardner, W. (1993). Inclusion, motivation, and good faith: The morality of coercion in mental hospital admission. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 295 - 306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanch, A., and Parrish, J. (1993). Reports of three roundtable discussions on involuntary interventions. Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Community Support Monograph, 1, 1 - 42.Google Scholar
  3. Brakel, J., Parry, J., and Weiner, B. (1985). The mentally disabled and the law ( 3rd ed. ). Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J., and Schraiber, R. (1989). In pursuit of wellness: The well-being project, Vol. 6. Sacramento: California Department of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  5. Cuffel, B. (1992). Characteristics associated with legal status change among psychiatric patients. Community Mental Health Journal, 28, 471 - 482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner, W., Hoge, S., Bennett, N., Roth, L., Lidz, C., Monahan, J., and Mulvey, E. (1993). Two scales for measuring patients perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 307 - 321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1994). Forced into treatment: The role of coercion in clinical practice. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hoge, S., Lidz, C., Eisenberg, M., Gardner, W., Monahan, J., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., and Bennett, N. (1994). Coercion in the admission of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric patients. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. Hoge, S., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Bennett, N., Siminoff, A., Arnold, R., and Monahan, J. (1993). Patient, family, and staff perceptions of coercion in mental hospital admission: An exploratory study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 281 - 293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lidz, C., Hoge, S., Gardner, W., Bennett, N., Monahan, J., Mulvey, E., and Roth, L. (in press). Perceived coercion in mental hospital admission: Pressures and process. Archives of General Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  11. Luckstead, A., and Coursey, R. (1995). Consumer perceptions of pressure and force in psychiatric treatments. Psychiatric Services, 46, 146 - 152.Google Scholar
  12. Monahan, J., Hoge, S., Lidz, C., Roth, L., Bennett, N., Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. (1995). Coercion and commitment: Understanding involuntary mental hospital admission. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18, 249 - 263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Center for State Courts (1986). Guidelines for involuntary civil commitment. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 10, 409 - 415.Google Scholar
  14. Riecher-Rossler, A., and Rossler, W. (1993). Compulsory admission of psychiatric patients: An international comparison. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 87, 231 - 236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers, A., Pilgram, D., and Lacey, R. (1993). Experiencing psychiatry: Users views of services. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenstein, M., Steadman, H., MacAskill, R., and Manderscheid, R. (1986). Legal status of admissions to three inpatient psychiatric settings, United States, 1980. Mental Health Statistical Note Number 178. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  17. Swartz, M., Burns, B., Hiday, V., George, L., Swanson, J., and Wagner, H. (1995). New directions in research on involuntary outpatient commitment. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 46, 381 - 385.Google Scholar
  18. Wertheimer, A. (1993). A philosophical examination of coercion for mental health issues. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 239 - 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zwerling, I., Conte, H., Plutchik, R., and Karaser, T. (1978). “No commitment week”feasibility study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 1198 - 1201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Monahan
    • 1
  • Steven K. Hoge
    • 2
  • Charles W. Lidz
    • 3
  • Marlene M. Eisenberg
    • 2
  • Nancy S. Bennett
    • 4
  • William P. Gardner
    • 3
  • Edward P. Mulvey
    • 3
  • Loren H. Roth
    • 3
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public PolicyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.BronxUSA

Personalised recommendations