Article Text
Abstract
Medical ethicist, Guidry-Grimes has critically reviewed the concept of insight, voicing concerns that it lacks consensus as to its components and that it undermines patient perspectives. We respond by briefly summarising research over the last 30 years that she overlooks which has helped establish the clinical validity of the construct. This includes the adoption of standardised assessment tools—at least in research—and longitudinal and cross-sectional studies quantifying associations with psychopathological, clinical and cognitive measures. We also make the distinction between the current standards for assessing decision-making capacity leading to, where appropriate, involuntary treatment in clinical and medico-legal settings which in most legislations do not include insight assessments, and anecdotal reports of the use and misuse of ‘lack of insight’ as a proxy for more comprehensive evaluation. We conclude by encouraging a broader view of insight akin to self-knowledge.
- involuntary civil commitment
- capacity
- decision-making
- mentally ill and disabled persons
- psychiatry
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- When psychiatric diagnosis becomes an overworked tool
- Ethical complexities in assessing patients’ insight
- Financial incentives for patients in the treatment of psychosis
- The 7-year teesside experience of primary prevention ICD indications following primary PCI (PPCI) and the potential impact of a change in NICE guidance
- Mentally disordered or lacking capacity? Lessons for management of serious deliberate self harm
- Covert administration of medication in food: a worthwhile moral gamble?
- A UK survey of rehabilitation following critical illness: implementation of NICE Clinical Guidance 83 (CG83) following hospital discharge
- Mental capacity and psychiatric admission
- More than just filler: an empirically informed ethical analysis of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in body dysmorphic disorder
- Cardiovascular health technology assessment: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence