Article Text
Abstract
Residents with dementia in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) often receive antipsychotic (AP) medications without clear clinical indications. One non-clinical factor influencing the use of APs in LTCFs is low staff levels. Often, using APs is viewed and rationalised by healthcare professionals in LTCFs as a lesser evil option to manage low staff levels. This paper investigates the ethical plausibility of using APs as a lesser of two evils in resource-constrained LTCFs. I examine the practice vis-à-vis the three frequently invoked conditions of lesser evil justifications as specified in the wider philosophical literature. These conditions include (1) the necessity condition, (2) the condition of sensitivity to both deontic (ie, constraint-based) and non-deontic (ie, outcome-based) considerations and (3) the commensurability condition. I argue that there are considerable difficulties in demonstrating that the practice in question satisfies the conditions of lesser evil justifications. In particular, there are major difficulties in satisfying the condition of sensitivity to deontic and outcome-based considerations, and the commensurability condition. I also argue that the current philosophical debate on lesser-evil justifications is not straightforwardly applicable to the practice of using APs for non-clinical purposes in LTCFs. I contend that caregivers are not so-called ‘generic’ agents, and the assumed rarity of lesser evil cases is questionable. I conclude that until further work is done to resolve these issues, the lesser evil reasoning cannot be, at least routinely, used to formulate robust moral justifications for the practice in question.
- dementia
- ethics
- health personnel
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Twitter @hojjatsoofi
Contributors HS is the sole author of the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by Macquarie University (Grant number: 1887920).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Telemedicine for the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in long-term care facilities: the DETECT study, methods of a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess feasibility
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in long-term care facilities: a qualitative descriptive study of community-based and specialist palliative care physicians’ experiences, perceptions and perspectives
- Global health challenges in treating an elderly institutionalised patient: an oral medicine perspective
- Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury
- Antipsychotic prescribing practices and patient, family member and healthcare professional perceptions of antipsychotic prescribing in acute care settings: a scoping review protocol
- Case–control study to estimate odds of death within 28 days of positive test for SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination for residents of long-term care facilities in England, 2020–2021
- Evaluation of the use of oseltamivir prophylaxis in the control of influenza outbreaks in long-term care facilities in Alberta, Canada: a retrospective provincial database analysis
- Early warning and rapid public health response to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in LTCF site-specific sewage samples and assessment of antibodies response in this population: prospective study protocol
- Factors associated with the decision to prescribe and administer antipsychotics for older people with delirium: a qualitative descriptive study
- Effect of a multimethod quality improvement intervention on antipsychotic medication use among residents of long-term care