Issues Regarding Compulsory Treatment in Compulsory Admitted Mentally ill Patients

Abstract

Introduction

In psychiatric clinical practice compulsory admission to hospital is the last option of the overall care provided to mentally ill patients, justified in terms of civil and human rights because of issues of protection for patients’ and society members’ life and health. Usually treating psychiatrists believe that issues of compulsory admission are without doubt associated with the permission, or even obligation, to apply compulsory treatment in a routine daily base.

Aims

In this review, we are exploring issues around the implementation of compulsory treatment.

Methods

Thorough research of the main databases and web search engines for relevant studies, agencies and organizations, interested in compulsory treatment issues.

Results

Research shows ambiguous views. Conservatives argue that delay of any substantial, even enforced, and well documented treatment, would result in delay of treatment and excess use of other potentially more enforced methods. Using laws and legislation patients’ rights are guarded but we also have the obligation to treat patients. On the other hand, liberals express totally opposite views. Capacity (or incapacity) is not ‘all or nothing’ but specific to decision and should be respected, with the exception to emergency treatment need.

Conclusions

The capacity of decision-making of the mentally ill patient, whether or not being compulsory admitted, should be assessed in a more holistic and systematic approach and become part of the standard practice, followed by dissemination of these decisions to all relevant parties. Restore decisional autonomy should be one of the main goals of any therapeutic intervention.

Disclosure of interest

The author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.