Jump to comment:

• COMMENTS ON THE WISDOM OF MAKING PSYCHIATRY MORAL AGAIN
  Alistair G Stewart
  Published on: 10 September 2022
• A laudable but currently unfeasible goal
  Malcolm Forbes
  Published on: 7 September 2022

• Published on: 10 September 2022

  COMMENTS ON THE WISDOM OF MAKING PSYCHIATRY MORAL AGAIN

  • Alistair G Stewart, Consultant Psychiatrist Fairfield General Hospital, Bury. Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

  Any claims by psychiatrists1 to be able to improve people morally should be extremely modest. It is helpful to be reminded that psychiatrists have attempted to do this and still do so, nowadays usually unconsciously or implicitly. In fact where therapeutic approach embodies moral positions, as clarified for the psychoanalytic tradition by Edward Harcourt2, it is important for these to be made explicit so that they can be scrutinised.
  People coming to see a psychiatrist are often in a personal crisis, whatever its cause (which may include the effects of mental disorder as well as factors in their lives contributing to that disorder). They may as a result may be driven to re-evaluate their lives, their choices and their relationships (there are parallels with the impact of serious physical illness and confrontation with disability and mortality). In fact any serious illness or intimation of mortality may generate the same kind of self-questioning. Such people are clearly faced with moral questions, whether that be regarding specific decisions, balancing their own needs with those of others, making hard choices or making amends. How they address these things will form part of their recovery and shape it. An important difference between physical and mental illness is that people living through the latter are more likely to be lonely, relatively unbefriended, isolated and short of support from family, friends or other social circles, or indeed alienated from them. They a...

  Show More

  Any claims by psychiatrists1 to be able to improve people morally should be extremely modest. It is helpful to be reminded that psychiatrists have attempted to do this and still do so, nowadays usually unconsciously or implicitly. In fact where therapeutic approach embodies moral positions, as clarified for the psychoanalytic tradition by Edward Harcourt2, it is important for these to be made explicit so that they can be scrutinised.
  People coming to see a psychiatrist are often in a personal crisis, whatever its cause (which may include the effects of mental disorder as well as factors in their lives contributing to that disorder). They may as a result may be driven to re-evaluate their lives, their choices and their relationships (there are parallels with the impact of serious physical illness and confrontation with disability and mortality). In fact any serious illness or intimation of mortality may generate the same kind of self-questioning. Such people are clearly faced with moral questions, whether that be regarding specific decisions, balancing their own needs with those of others, making hard choices or making amends. How they address these things will form part of their recovery and shape it. An important difference between physical and mental illness is that people living through the latter are more likely to be lonely, relatively unbefriended, isolated and short of support from family, friends or other social circles, or indeed alienated from them. They are thus at once more vulnerable and more likely to seek guidance from a mental health worker, and mental health workers may be more tempted to give it.
  In my view psychiatrists should be wary of seeking directly to improve people morally in such situations, and concentrate on treating their mental disorder. Improvements in someone’s moral condition should be seen as a bonus rather than the goal. Psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists do not have a plausible claim to be more moral than anyone else, and most people are fortunate enough to find people elsewhere in their lives who act as some kind of moral touchstone, be they a parent, another relative, a friend, a teacher, a mentor, a work colleague, a priest, someone else who shows them kindness or indeed a public figure with whom they can strongly identify. Again, these sources of help may be less available to people to people with mental disorders
  One way in which a psychiatrist or anyone offering a therapeutic alliance may contribute to someone’s moral understanding is through their own behaviour, for example by being honest, trustworthy and reliable, and concerned. In this way some rudiments of a model for other relationships may be seen. Beyond this, the psychiatrist job is usually to help people to break out of social isolation so that they do break out of their isolation and so find a wider range of non-professional people who can act as their sounding boards.
  (It is interesting that some people who are very dismissive of the judgments made of their behaviour by others, have quite high expectations of doctors and therapists, in terms of confidentiality, punctuality and access to certain goods and services).
  A further consideration which should encourage humility in any psychiatrist inclined to guide their patients morally is that their patients most often will be in a less favourable socioeconomic position than they are. This does not mean that they have no choices, but the range of choices open to them is likely to be narrower. This will have implications for the morality or otherwise of, for example, benefit fraud, or sex work, or breach of Covid-19 restrictions, or indeed of abortion.
  Drug treatments in psychiatry may restore people’s level of concern for and awareness of the needs of others, but this is no different from the effects eg of analgesics in relieving somatic pain, which also makes people withdraw into themselves. In a wider sense, it could be said that morals depend on morale, in that relative freedom from pain, optimism of the will and a sense that change is possible are likely to be associated with a more generous and courageous spirit.
  With respect to drugs given specifically to enhance moral behaviour, the studies in this area are limited by the way they measure moral decision-making, and the lack of a demonstrable link between the answers given to questionnaires and any sustained difference in behaviour3. In addition, when people use alcohol or another drug to give themselves the courage to say or do something difficult, or to seek a spiritual experience, there does have to be first the wish to take that challenge or make that decision. This applies to some studies of psychedelic drugs.
  There is a more general point here. As Kant noted, changing in a desirable direction this or that quality in a person is no guarantee of moral behaviour:
  Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control, and calm deliberation are not only good in many respects, but even seem to constitute part of the intrinsic worth of the person; but they are far from deserving to be called good without qualification, although they have been so unconditionally praised by the ancients. For without the principles of a good will, they may become extremely bad, and the coolness of a villain not only makes him far more dangerous, but also directly makes him more abominable in our eyes than he would have been without it.4
  In the forensic arena, improvements in moral awareness and behaviour are again likely to arise as a bonus effect of treatment broadly understood, which includes physical restrictions for periods of time. It is important here to consider how constraints of certain kinds – prison, probation – may themselves play a part in moral improvement, for example by creating a space for enforced reflection, or by giving someone what may be the novel experience of being held to account for their behaviour. Such benefits should probably not be exaggerated.
  When attempts have been made specifically to change the mental and moral set and behaviour of people with severe antisocial personality disorder, the results have not been encouraging5. A different approach, used with prisoners identified as having PTSD arising from their violent offending, appeared to be more promising as a way to open up a route to reflection and consideration of the impact on victims6. However this depended on the prisoners being willing to enter the treatment programme in this first place, which recalls the maxim that for someone to be open to arguments for acting in a good way they have first of all to recognise a distinction between acting in a good way and acting in a bad way.
  An important influence on moral growth not mentioned in the article is that of the group. Most obviously this can be seen at work in settings such as AA, but also in group therapy more generally, which traditionally is supposed to make people more mature, rather than less neurotic as with individual therapy. Since morality is about interpersonal behaviour, it is not surprising that it is transmitted largely through groups, starting with parents then extended family then school, then social clubs, workplaces, sport and so on. Clearly the kind of lessons learned vary widely depending on the nature of these groups in practice, but they are likely to be much more influential than individual instruction.
  For nine years I ran a weekly group for patients on a mixed-gender acute admission ward in a very ethnically and socially diverse town. This had a number of benefits, one important one being a continuing effort to develop at least a minimum morality for co-existence on the ward, through a mixture of discussion and, where it could be tolerated, group feedback to participants about their behaviour. The basic principles modelled were modest but important: the right to have your say, the right to be listened to and basic courtesy. Expressions of care and concern in this setting could be powerful and moving.
  A more ambitious and articulated use of group therapy in an inpatient setting was described by Bion and Rickman in a military hospital in World War ll7
  The effect of this approach to the problem of neurosis was considerable. There was a readiness, and sometimes an eagerness, to discuss both in public and private the social implications of personality problems. The neurotic is commonly regarded as being self-centred and averse from cooperative endeavour; but perhaps because he is seldom put in an environment in which every member is on the same footing as regards interpersonal relationships.

  It is possible that psychiatrists could benefit from training in normative moral theories, but the effect of such training might be to make them less rather than more enthusiastic about direct effects to influence their patients’ moral development.

  1. McConnell and colleagues refer to ‘psychiatry’, but these matters are relevant to all mental health professionals
  2. Harcourt E 2015 The Place of Psychoanalysis in the History of Ethics Journal of Moral Philosophy
  3. Crockett MJ et al 2010 Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1009396107
  4. Kant E 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
  5. Tyrer P et al 2015 The lessons and legacy of the programme for dangerous and severe personality disorders Personality and Mental Health 9:96-106
  6. Evans C et al 2007 Intrusive Memories and Ruminations Related to Violent Crime Among Young Offenders: Phenomenological Characteristics Journal of Traumatic Stress 20:183-196
  7. Bion WR, Rickman J 1943 Intra-group tensions in the therapy: their study as the task of the group Lancet 242: 678-682

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 7 September 2022

  A laudable but currently unfeasible goal

  • Malcolm Forbes, Consultant Psychiatrist Barwon Health / University of Melbourne

  McConnell et al. provide a cogent argument that psychiatrists should influence the moral development of their patients in a limited substantive approach.
  What interests me, as a practising psychiatrist, is how to achieve this task. The penultimate paragraph of the paper recommends a “pluralist approach where the psychiatrist draws on any moral reasons, arguments or insights that help the patient achieve moral growth”. This recommendation follows a vignette of a woman with autism with “underdeveloped moral conceptions”. It’s worth noting that moral reasoning differs between autistic and neurotypical individuals despite similar moral judgements (Dempsey et al.). I suspect that, for a sustained change in interpersonal function and moral development, the patient would require more than an explanation of social reciprocity by a benevolent and well-meaning psychiatrist.
  An earlier vignette describes a man with a possible antisocial personality disorder and unwelcome views about the acceptability of violence. There is an unfortunate paucity of evidence to suggest psychological interventions result in significant change in specific antisocial behaviours (Gibbon et al.). There are experimental therapies that may cultivate moral development in these individuals (Tuck & Glenn), however these are far from accepted in clinical practice.
  The article sensibly notes that the needs of people with serious mental disorders should take priority over the flourishing of...

  Show More

  McConnell et al. provide a cogent argument that psychiatrists should influence the moral development of their patients in a limited substantive approach.
  What interests me, as a practising psychiatrist, is how to achieve this task. The penultimate paragraph of the paper recommends a “pluralist approach where the psychiatrist draws on any moral reasons, arguments or insights that help the patient achieve moral growth”. This recommendation follows a vignette of a woman with autism with “underdeveloped moral conceptions”. It’s worth noting that moral reasoning differs between autistic and neurotypical individuals despite similar moral judgements (Dempsey et al.). I suspect that, for a sustained change in interpersonal function and moral development, the patient would require more than an explanation of social reciprocity by a benevolent and well-meaning psychiatrist.
  An earlier vignette describes a man with a possible antisocial personality disorder and unwelcome views about the acceptability of violence. There is an unfortunate paucity of evidence to suggest psychological interventions result in significant change in specific antisocial behaviours (Gibbon et al.). There are experimental therapies that may cultivate moral development in these individuals (Tuck & Glenn), however these are far from accepted in clinical practice.
  The article sensibly notes that the needs of people with serious mental disorders should take priority over the flourishing of the mentally healthy. The President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists last year noted that there is just one consultant psychiatrist per 12,567 population in England. Enhancing the moral development of patients, insofar as it is possible, may be an important future goal for the profession but for now there are many severely unwell patients who need immediate assistance. To quote Carlyle, the main business of psychiatrists remains “not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand”.

  References:
  1. Dempsey, E., Moore, C., Johnson, S., Stewart, S., & Smith, I. (2020). Morality in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Development and Psychopathology, 32(3), 1069-1085.
  2. Gibbon S, Duggan C, Stoffers J, Huband N, Völlm BA, Ferriter M, Lieb K. Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;(6).
  3. Tuck, N, Glenn, LM. Cultivating conscience: Moral neurohabilitation of adolescents and young adults with conduct and/or antisocial personality disorders. Bioethics. 2021; 35: 337– 347.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top