Poor medication adherence in patients with a psychosis is associated with relapse. It has been proposed that outcomes might be improved by using financial incentives for treatment adherence (FITA). However, a strong moral intuition against this practice has been found. This paper examines the ethics of FITA.
Three arguments are presented, which if accepted would severely restrict or even prohibit the practice. These are based on (1) “incommensurable values”, where FITA denigrates an aspect of “respect for the person”, (2) “exploitation”, where unfair advantage is taken of the patient, and (3) “fairness”, where it is difficult to draw a line between those who should and should not be offered payment. A number of practical impediments are also considered.
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.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Financial incentives for antipsychotic depot medication: ethical issues
- Brain injury and deprivation of liberty on neurosciences wards: ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’
- Which values are important for patients during involuntary treatment? A qualitative study with psychiatric inpatients
- “Personality disorder” and capacity to make treatment decisions
- Insight is a useful construct in clinical assessments if used wisely
- The gap between voluntary admission and detention in mental health units
- When psychiatric diagnosis becomes an overworked tool
- Mentally disordered or lacking capacity? Lessons for management of serious deliberate self harm
- Threats and offers in community mental healthcare
- Is supervised community treatment ethically justifiable?