Abstract
Medical treatments are allowed only with the informed consent of the patient. The German civil commitment laws contain articles, which allow the commitment of mentally ill persons, who are acutely dangerous for themselves and/or for important legal rights of third persons. However, neither a mental illness alone, nor missing insight into the illness and the need for treatment are sufficient for compulsory admission. The most controversial issue is whether persons who are unable to consent have a right to live with their illness, particularly their mental illness, or rather a right for an effective treatment of the illness (implicitly acknowledging the subjective torment and, at times, sheer terror the symptoms cause for the psychotic individual). In Germany, compulsory treatments of patients under custodianship and in confinement can be allowed by courts if certain conditions are fulfilled: The patient is not able to consent to the necessary treatment; the physicians have tried to convince him; the treatment is necessary to avert considerable health detriments; the compulsory treatment is used as a last resort treatment, and its benefit-risk balance is positive. A rather new instrument for avoiding compulsive measures in states of dangerousness is the mental health advance directive. Preliminary results are promising: Patients who have written advance treatment directives committed less violent acts, needed less use of social workers time, showed greater improvement in their working relationship with their clinicians, and were more likely to report satisfaction with their treatment.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birmingham, L. (2004). Mental disorder and prisons. Psychiatric Bulletin, 28, 393–397.
Campbell, L. A., & Kisely, S. R. (2010). Advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Library, 1–38.
WHO Europe. (2009). Trenčín Statement on prisons and mental health. Copenhagen: WHO Europe, http://www.euro.who.int./Document/E914202.pdf. Retrieved 10 Nov 2012.
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1998). Assessing competence to consent in treatment. A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Janofsky, J. S., McCarthy, R. J., & Folstein, M. F. (1992). The Hopkins competency assessment test: A brief method for evaluating patients’ capacity to give informed consent. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 43(2), 132–136.
Konrad, N. (2001). Redevelopment of forensic-psychiatric institutions in former East Germany. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 509–526.
Lang, U. E., Hartmann, S., Schulz-Hartmann, S., et al. (2010). Do locked doors in psychiatric hospitals prevent patients from absconding? The European Journal of Psychiatry, 24(4), 199–204.
Marneros, A., Ullrich, S., & Rössner, D. (2002). Angeklagte Straftäter. Das Dilemma der Begutachtung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Morgan, D. W., Edwards, A. C., & Faulkner, L. R. (1993). The adaptation to prison by individuals with schizophrenia. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 21, 427–433.
Müller, S., & Walter, H. (2010). Reviewing autonomy. Implications of the neurosciences and the free will debate for the principle of respect for the patient’s autonomy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2, 205–217.
Müller, S., Walter, H., Kunze, H., Konrad, N., & Heinz, A. (2012a). Zwangsbehandlungen unter Rechtsunsicherheit. Teil 1: Die aktuelle Rechtslage zu Zwangsbehandlungen einwilligungsunfähiger Patienten mit psychischen Erkrankungen. Nervenarzt, 83, 1142–1149.
Müller, S., Walter, H., Kunze, H., Konrad, N., & Heinz, A. (2012b). Zwangsbehandlungen unter Rechtsunsicherheit. Teil 2: Folgen der Rechtsunsicherheit in der klinischen Praxis – Vorschläge zur Verbesserung. Nervenarzt, 83, 1150–1155.
Nedopil, N., Aldenhoff, J., Amelung, K., Eich, F. X., Fritze, J., Gastpar, M., et al. (1999). Competence to give informed consent to clinical studies. Statement by the taskforce on “ethical and legal questions” of the Association for Neuropsychopharmacology and Pharmacopsychiatry (“Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie [AGNP]”). Pharmacopsychiatry, 32(5), 165–168.
Salize, H. J., Dreßing, H., & Kief, C. (2007). Mentally disordered persons in European prison systems – needs, programmes and outcomes (EUPRIS). Final report. Mannheim: Central Institute of Mental Health.
Sammons, H. (2009). Ethical issues of clinical trials in children: A European perspective. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 94, 474–477.
Vollmann, J. (2008). Self-determination of patients and ability for self-determination (Patientenselbstbestimmung und Selbstbestimmungsfähigkeit). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Prof. Dr. Norbert Nedopil for his critical comments on an earlier version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Konrad, N., Müller, S. (2015). Compulsory Interventions in Mentally Ill Persons at Risk of Becoming Violent. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_56
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_56
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4706-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4707-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law