Ethical Exploration of the Least Restrictive Alternative

2003 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 866-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih-Yuan Lin
1986 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 149-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Geller

One response to the problems created by deinstitutionalization has been outpatient commitment. Involuntary community treatment presents a series of dilemmas, including those involving the role of enforced treatment in psychiatry, the implementation of informed consent, the application of “least restrictive alternative,” and the ever-widening liability of psychiatrists. While outpatient commitment itself presents conundrums, outpatient commitment which is unenforceable brings the psychiatrist to even further quandaries. Using Pennsylvania as an example, the difficulties posed by unenforceable outpatient commitment are presented. The author concludes that although coerced community treatment may be successful even without legal sanctions, this is not an ethically sound solution.


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 246-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Atkinson ◽  
H. C. Garner

Proposals for new mental health legislation make the case for using the ‘least restrictive alternative’ (Scottish Executive, 2001) and the ‘least restrictive environment’ (Department of Health & Home Office, 2000) as guiding principles in deciding the management and treatment of the patient. This appears to be the case made for introducing compulsory treatment in the community. The patient living in the community, while maintained on medication, rather than the hospital would appear to be defined as on the ‘least restrictive alternative’. This, however, takes only a limited approach to what is ‘restrictive’, which should be interpreted more widely, including the patient's view as well as that of clinicians and policy makers. Thus, a patient may see it as less restrictive during an acute phase to be in hospital and not on medication, than in the community but on medication. It is likely, given our knowledge of patients' attitudes to medication (Eastwood & Pugh, 1997), that many patients will prefer to be on oral medication rather than depot, which they see as less restrictive.


1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant T. Harris ◽  
Marnie E. Rice ◽  
Denise L. Preston

Although there is agreement within professional and legal communities that the least restrictive alternative should be used when restraining upset psychiatric patients, there is disagreement as to what constitutes the least restrictive alternative. Forty patients and 38 staff who had either much or little direct experience with restraint techniques were asked their opinions about various aspects of the appropriateness and restrictiveness of nine different techniques or combinations of techniques for managing upset patients in each of four different hypothetical situations. The results revealed remarkable agreement about the relative intrusiveness of the techniques. The implications for the management of disturbed patients are discussed.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 522-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naida F. Forbes ◽  
Helen T. Cash ◽  
Stephen M. Lawrie

Aims and methodWe examined the local impact of introducing a home treatment team on the use of in-patient psychiatric resources and rates of detention under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.ResultsRates of admission to hospital and duration of hospital stay were unchanged. However, there was an increase in episodes of detention in the year following the team's introduction.Clinical implicationsOffering home treatment as an alternative to in-patient care may be associated with an increase in compulsory treatment. If true, this is incompatible with the ‘least restrictive alternative’ principle of the recently revised mental health legislation.


1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Gutheil ◽  
Paul S. Appelbaum ◽  
David B. Wexler

The concept of the least restrictive alternative has been misunderstood and probably misapplied in relation to involuntary interventions common on inpatient wards: seclusion, restraint, and forced emergency medication. A brief historical review of the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative is presented, followed by a clinical and ethical analysis of problems in its application. The least restrictive alternative is demonstrated to be an inappropriate model for dealing realistically with issues raised by involuntary treatment of the institutionalized mentally ill.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document