scholarly journals Involuntary outpatient treatment: the ethical implications

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
M Castellano Arroyo
Keyword(s):  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment

Clinical Guidelines for Involuntary Outpatient Treatment.

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment

Involuntary outpatient treatment in England and Wales

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 595-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bindman
Keyword(s):  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment

scholarly journals Assessing the New York City Involuntary Outpatient Treatment Program

2001 ◽  
Vol 52 (11) ◽  
pp. 1533-a-1534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry J. Steadman ◽  
Kostas Gounis ◽  
Deborah Dennis ◽  
Kim Hopper ◽  
Brenda Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
Treatment Program ◽  
York City ◽  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment

scholarly journals Does involuntary out-patient treatment work?

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. O'Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Revolving Door ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Discontinue Treatment ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment ◽  
The Us ◽  
Considerable Debate ◽  
The Uk

There has been considerable debate in the UK in recent years about the propriety of using various forms of ‘involuntary out-patient treatment’ for some individuals with serious mental illness (Eastman, 1995; Dyre, 1998; Burns, 1999; Moncrieff & Smyth, 1999; Sugarman, 1999). While most jurisdictions in the US have statutes that support involuntary out-patient treatment (Torrey & Kaplan, 1995), its use remains controversial (Slobogin, 1994; Diamond, 1995; Torrey, 1997). Involuntary outpatient treatment was originally proposed as a solution to the ‘revolving door syndrome’ (Geller, 1996). It has also been recognised, however, that it may provide a solution to the clinical and ethical dilemmas of allowing individuals who are incapable of making treatment decisions to discontinue treatment, with predictable deterioration to the point where they may harm themselves or others (Geller, 1990). This paper provides a review of controlled studies that have examined whether involuntary treatment in the community is effective.

Involuntary outpatient treatment in patients with severe mental illness: A one-year follow-up study

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Lera-Calatayud ◽  
M. Hernández-Viadel ◽  
C. Bellido-Rodriguez ◽  
C. Cañete-Nicolás ◽  
P. Asensio-Pascual ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Severe Mental Illness ◽  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment ◽  
One Year

Ethical Aspects of Involuntary Outpatient Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S455-S456
Author(s):  
S. Galiano Rus ◽  
A. Soler Iborte ◽  
Á. López Díaz
Keyword(s):  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Therapeutic Environment ◽  
Involuntary Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Therapeutic Needs ◽  
Competing Interest

IntroductionInvoluntary outpatient treatment (IOT) is a type of non-voluntary treatment applied in the community, which tries to ensure the therapeutic compliance of patients that have a severe mental illness.In Spain, a specific legal regulation about this matter does not exist; however, it is a fact in clinical practice. The application of IOT is not without controversy, with advocates, who consider it a way of achieving therapeutic compliance, and detractors, who think it is an infringement of the fundamental rights of a person.Objectives/methodologyAn evaluation of the knowledge on IOT in Spain. Analyze the four ethical principles found in this treatment.ResultsThe protection of the patient is encompassed in the principle of beneficence. And how could we combine this with the principle of autonomy? The answer should be individualized and based on a determined disorder. Starting with non-maleficence, we ask if IOT would provoke a rejection so that the patient would distance himself further from the therapeutic environment. As for the principle of justice, the high cost by patients that do not comply with the treatment would be diminished if we are able to have them follow the treatment with higher effectiveness. This would allow a greater number of patients to access these resources.ConclusionsThe proposal of IOT should be preceded by a deliberative process. This process should include a psychiatric diagnosis that includes not only psychiatric aspects, but psychological, familial and social as well. This would compel us to create a personalized design of the therapeutic needs of each patient.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document