Exploring the views of people with mental health problems' on the concept of coercion: Towards a broader socio-ethical perspective
Introduction
Coercion in mental health care has been a controversial issue throughout history, leading to many debates on its nature and use (Anderson, 2014). One important challenge that is discussed in research related to coercion's outcome and moral justification is that the concept of coercion (What is coercion?) is poorly understood (Hoyer et al., 2002).
In philosophy and sociology, coercion is often a complex phenomenon that includes both external and internal psychological dimensions (Feinberg, 1986, Wertheimer, 1993). Coercion is characterised by restraining the freedom of choice or possibilities for action that compromises one's autonomy. Coercion may compromise negative freedom from external restraints or positive freedom to express one self, to define and pursue one's goals or to have opportunities to act. Involuntariness is a core aspect of coercion, i.e., when the actor (B) is forced to do what he does, despite his own preferences, due to pressure, threats, or conditional offers. This provides no other choice than to subdue his will or actions to the coercer's wishes due to the implied costs of non-compliance. Coercion is also related to power relations, such as powerlessness, or opposing, challenging and potentially removing the power of another through ‘counter-power’ (Dahl, 1957, Foucault and Faubion, 2001, Weber, 1976). Further, power refers to the stakeholders capabilities and resources, structures and hidden forces that constrain the agenda and its' alternatives, and that is ideological in nature (Lukes, 2005). These power aspects may typically influence B's baseline position and, thus, the possibilities for freely choosing (Anderson, 2014, Feinberg, 1986) and the perceived level of coercion.
Empirical research on patients ‘perceptions of coercion in mental health care has also revealed coercion's complexity by expanding the earlier focus on formal legal coercion to include several formal and informal coercive practices in mental health care, and by showing that formal legal status [i.e., voluntary or involuntary admission] does not necessarily correspond to the presence or absence of coercion in the admission process. For example, there may be, ‘coerced voluntary admissions’ (patients feeling forced to sign in under the threat of involuntary commitment), or ‘un-coerced involuntary admissions’ (involuntarily committed patients who believe or perceived that they are being hospitalised on voluntary basis) (Hoge et al., 1997, Hoyer et al., 2002, Iversen et al., 2002; C. Lidz et al., 1998, Monahan et al., 1995).
Research on perceived coercion has added valuable knowledge to coercion in mental health care. However, the frequent use of quantitative measures has provided few qualitative details on the nature of the reported coercive incidents (Prebble et al., 2014) and, more generally, patients' views on the concept of coercion in mental health care. Further, several health studies in recent years frame treatment objections (often medication) or negative views of coercion as a lack of insight, decision-making capacity, or pathology. Although relevant, this may overlook valid insights or intersubjective truths that could warrant quality-improvement through legal reform, policy development, dialogue with the user(s), and insights that could inform theoretical and moral discussions about what coercion is and when it is justified (Diesfeld and Sjostrom, 2007, Hamilton and Roper, 2006, Lidz et al., 1995). Because the most important reason for justifying and reducing coercion is the patients’ interests and because they are most directly affected by coercive acts, their views on coercion – both conceptually and morally – are of pivotal interest. Knowledge of their views is also important to ensure that we are actually talking about the same thing when discussing coercion. Furthermore, this knowledge could contribute to an increased understanding of what is at stake for the patient, what influences perceived coercion, the factors that reduce cooperation, and the advantages or disadvantages of treatment strategies. However, there is sparse research on the views of people who have mental health problems – as meaning-making actors with valid insights and legitimate claims - on the concept of coercion.
Thus, drawing on the above discussions, this paper aims to deepen our understanding of coercion in mental health care by exploring the concept of coercion from the perspectives of people who have first-hand experiences of being coerced. Further, based on the findings, we will argue for the need to develop a broader socio-ethical understanding of coercion. Finally, implications for research and mental health policy will be discussed.
Section snippets
Study context and design
Mental health care in Norway is publicly funded and organised as ‘specialised health services’ – i.e. hospital trusts (hospitals and outpatient clinics) and as ‘community health services’ (general practitioners, local emergency- and home-care). Formal coercion is mainly performed within specialised health services, while community health services request involuntary hospitalisation. National statistics show relatively stable use of coercion over time. However, great variation among the hospital
Results
The following four overlapping themes emerged as core aspects of the participants’ views on the concept of coercion in mental health care: coercion as a wide-ranging phenomenon, coercion as deprivation of freedom or power relations, and coercion as social and existential life events.
Discussion
The study shows that people with first-hand experiences of being coerced view coercion as a wide-ranging phenomenon that unfolds across various health and welfare services. It also indicates that experiencing a situation as coercive and how extensive, negative or legitimate the coercion is viewed by the users depends on several aspects before, during, and after the coercive incidents. Thus, coercion is a relational and contextual phenomenon. Because several of these aspects are outside of what
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References (35)
- et al.
Perceptions of coercion in the admission of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric patients
Int. J. Law Psychiatry
(1997) - et al.
Paternalism and autonomy: a presentation of a Nordic study on the use of coercion in the mental health care system
Int. J. Law Psychiatry
(2002) - et al.
Illness careers and continuity of care in mental health services: a qualitative study of service users and carers
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2009) - et al.
Stigma and coercion in the context of outpatient treatment for people with mental illnesses
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2008) - et al.
Coercion and comittment - understanding involuntary mental- hospital admission
Int. J. Law Psychiatry
(1995) - et al.
Improving efficiency and access to mental health care: combining integrated care and advanced access
General Hosp. Psychiatry
(2008) Invocation of coercion context in compliance communication - power dynamics in psychiatric care
Int. J. Law Psychiatry
(2006)- et al.
Creating 'therapeutic landscapes' for mental health carers in inpatient settings: a dynamic perspective on permeability and inclusivity
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2013) - et al.
Focus groups and ethnography
Hum. Organ.
(1995) Coercion
Negative and positive freedom: lessons from, and to, sociology
Sociology
Bruk av tvang i psykisk helsevern for voksne i 2013
Pressures to adhere to treatment ('leverage') in English mental healthcare
Br. J. Psychiatry
The concept of power
Behav. Sci.
Interpretive flexibility: why doesn't insight incite controversy in mental health law?
Behav. Sci. law
The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: 3: Harm to Self
The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984
Cited by (53)
The relationship between clinician leverage, patient experiences, and and the impact of stigma: a study in academic and community outpatient psychiatry settings
2021, General Hospital PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :It is important to note that psychopathology and leverages are independently correlated with stigma experience and impact, and are not confounded by each other. Our results do highlight the moral implications for this vulnerable group, having both stigmatization from their mental illness, and high likelihood of encountering various leveraged clinical situations based on their mental illness [46]. A notable Canadian study also found that people who rated their general mental health as fair or poor were almost three times more likely to have experienced stigma when compared to those with minimal symptoms [47].
Experience of coercion among nursing professionals in a medium-stay mental health unit: A qualitative study in Spain
2023, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health NursingExploring Patients’ Feeling of Being Coerced During Psychiatric Hospital Admission: A Qualitative Study
2023, Psychiatric QuarterlyA Call for Transformation: Moving Away from Coercive Measures in Mental Health Care
2023, Healthcare (Switzerland)Coercion in intensive care, an insufficiently explored issue—a scoping review of qualitative narratives of patient’s experiences
2023, Journal of the Intensive Care Society