This paper presents the case of a young man with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, who agreed to inpatient treatment primarily to avoid being formally detained. I draw on Peter Breggin's early critique of coercion of informal patients to supply an updated discussion of the ethical issues raised. Central questions are whether the admission was coercive, and if so, whether unethical. Whether or not involuntary admission would be justified, moral discomfort surrounds its appearance as a threat. This arises in part from ambivalence about autonomy: although a ‘choice’ is made, the threat of detention impinges on the patient's choice. Recent legal developments provide some experience of safeguarding those whose consent is not obtained. This highlights the lack of safeguards in this ‘gap’ and suggests that we have the tools with which to begin to deal with the problem.
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.
Patient consent To maintain confidentiality the person described is derived from several others and not recognisably any single person I have encountered.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Brain injury and deprivation of liberty on neurosciences wards: ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’
- Deprivation of liberty safeguards: how prepared are we?
- Locked inpatient units in modern mental health care: values and practice issues
- Pressure and coercion in the care for the addicted: ethical perspectives
- Identifying and managing deprivation of liberty in adults in England and Wales
- Ulysses arrangements in psychiatry: a matter of good care?
- Ethics briefing
- Deprivation of liberty safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act
- Palliative care clinicians' knowledge of the law regarding the use of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)
- “Idiots, infants, and the insane”: mental illness and legal incompetence