دورية أكاديمية
Tensions between policy and practice: A qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital.
| العنوان: | Tensions between policy and practice: A qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Fistein EC; Education Division, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk., Clare IC; National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England (CLAHRC) Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK., Redley M; Cambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Holland AJ; Cambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England (CLAHRC) Cambridge, UK. |
| المصدر: | International journal of law and psychiatry [Int J Law Psychiatry] 2016 May-Jun; Vol. 46, pp. 50-7. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Apr 06. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article; Observational Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Elsevier Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 7806862 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1873-6386 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01602527 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Law Psychiatry Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Publication: Amsterdam : Elsevier Original Publication: Elmsford, N. Y., Pergamon Press |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Commitment of Mentally Ill/*legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/*legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders/*diagnosis , Mental Disorders/*therapy, Adult ; Dangerous Behavior ; England ; Female ; Humans ; Interview, Psychological ; Length of Stay/legislation & jurisprudence ; Male ; Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence ; Mental Competency/psychology ; Mental Disorders/psychology ; Observational Studies as Topic ; Paternalism ; Patient Admission/legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient Advocacy/legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient Safety/legislation & jurisprudence ; Risk Assessment/legislation & jurisprudence ; Treatment Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence ; Treatment Refusal/psychology |
| مستخلص: | The use of detention for psychiatric treatment is widespread and sometimes necessary. International human rights law requires a legal framework to safeguard the rights to liberty and personal integrity by preventing arbitrary detention. However, research suggests that extra-legal factors may influence decisions to detain. This article presents observational and interview data to describe how decisions to detain are made in practice in one jurisdiction (England and Wales) where a tension between policy and practice has been described. The analysis shows that practitioners mould the law into 'practical criteria' that appear to form a set of operational criteria for identifying cases to which the principle of soft paternalism may be applied. Most practitioners also appear willing, albeit often reluctantly, to depart from their usual reliance on the principle of soft paternalism and authorise detention of people with the capacity to refuse treatment, in order to prevent serious harm. We propose a potential resolution for the tension between policy and practice: two separate legal frameworks to authorise detention, one with a suitable test of capacity, used to enact soft paternalism, and the other to provide legal justification for detention for psychiatric treatment of the small number of people who retain decision-making capacity but nonetheless choose to place others at risk by refusing treatment. This separation of detention powers into two systems, according to the principle that justifies the use of detention would be intellectually coherent, consistent with human rights instruments and, being consistent with the apparent moral sentiments of practitioners, less prone to idiosyncratic interpretations in practice. (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.) |
| References: | J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997;25(2):135-47. (PMID: 9213286) Psychiatr Serv. 1998 Jul;49(7):941-5. (PMID: 9661230) Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1993 Apr;87(4):231-6. (PMID: 8488742) Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Jul;29(5):767-86. (PMID: 17714342) Acad Psychiatry. 2006 May-Jun;30(3):191-5. (PMID: 16728764) Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009 May-Jun;32(3):147-55. (PMID: 19299015) Med Law Rev. 2011 Autumn;19(4):581-605. (PMID: 22038745) Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002 Jul;106(1):3-8. (PMID: 12100342) Int J Law Psychiatry. 1997 Spring;20(2):167-81. (PMID: 9178060) Am J Psychiatry. 1991 Jan;148(1):28-33. (PMID: 1984703) Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996 May;93(5):389-96. (PMID: 8792910) Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;184:163-8. (PMID: 14754830) Australas Psychiatry. 2013 Apr;21(2):137-40. (PMID: 23426098) Public Health. 2008 Sep;122(9):906-13. (PMID: 18555496) Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov-Dec;39(11-12):1018-21. (PMID: 16343304) J Appl Philos. 1988;5(1):49-59. (PMID: 11659257) |
| معلومات مُعتمدة: | United Kingdom Wellcome Trust; United Kingdom Department of Health |
| فهرسة مساهمة: | Keywords: Autonomy; Human rights; Involuntary treatment; Mental health legislation; Paternalism |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20160411 Date Completed: 20180104 Latest Revision: 20181113 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20221213 |
| مُعرف محوري في PubMed: | PMC4899821 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.029 |
| PMID: | 27062108 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 1873-6386 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.029 |