One approach to the analysis of ethical dilemmas in medical practice uses the “four principles plus scope” approach. These principles are: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, along with concern for their scope of application. However, conflicts between the different principles are commonplace in psychiatric practice, especially in forensic psychiatry, where duties to patients often conflict with duties to third parties such as the public. This article seeks to highlight some of the specific ethical dilemmas encountered in forensic psychiatry: the excessive use of segregation for the protection of others, the ethics of using mechanical restraint when clinically beneficial and the use of physical treatment without consent. We argue that justice, as a principle, should be paramount in forensic psychiatry, and that there is a need for a more specific code of ethics to cover specialised areas of medicine like forensic psychiatry. This code should specify that in cases of conflict between different principles, justice should gain precedence over the other principles.
- ECT, electroconvulsive therapy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Care or custody? Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatry
- Forensic psychiatry
- How, and when, can I restrain a patient?
- Design features that reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities: a rapid systematic review
- How to make the most of your psychiatry placement
- Response to the white paper on MHA reform: marginalisation of patients detained under part III of the MHA
- The convention on human rights and biomedicine and the use of coercion in psychiatry
- Prospective cohort study of the evaluation of patient benefit from the redevelopment of a complete national forensic mental health service: the Dundrum Forensic Redevelopment Evaluation Study (D-FOREST) protocol
- HCR-20 shows poor field validity in clinical forensic psychiatry settings
- How do doctors and nurses manage delirium in intensive care units? A qualitative study using focus groups