Literature DB >> 26482288

[Coercive procedures in forensic psychiatry : Current treatment practice in forensic psychiatric hospitals from a medical ethics perspective].

A-K Jakovljević1, C Wiesemann2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the legal foundations of coercive treatment in German forensic psychiatric clinics were declared to be unconstitutional. In the present study we analyzed the frequency of coercive procedures in forensic psychiatric hospitals before and after 2011, the consequences for medical care as well as the ethical assessments by attending chief physicians.
METHODS: By a questionnaire-based survey of views of attending chief physicians in forensic psychiatric clinics in 2013, data on the current state of patient care were collected and analyzed from an ethical perspective. These were compared with treatment data from a large forensic psychiatric clinic collected over the period 2007-2013.
RESULTS: Even after 2011 coercive forms of treatment were applied in forensic psychiatric hospitals. In practice, there is a high degree of legal uncertainty regarding the limits of coercive treatment. Of all patients treated in forensic psychiatric clinics in 2012, on average 13 % had been in isolation at least once, approximately 3 % had been treated under fixation at least once and 2.2 % had been subjected to coercive medical treatment at least once.
CONCLUSION: From an ethical perspective an open debate about the practice of coercive treatment is urgently required. Legal regulations, ethical guidelines and treatment standards have to be developed for the special situation of patient care in forensic psychiatric hospitals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coercive treatment; Forensic psychiatry; Medical ethics; Questionnaire; Refusal of treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26482288     DOI: 10.1007/s00115-015-4437-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nervenarzt        ISSN: 0028-2804            Impact factor:   1.214


  5 in total

1.  Retransplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue: the first live birth in Germany.

Authors:  Andreas Müller; Katja Keller; Jennifer Wacker; Ralf Dittrich; Gudrun Keck; Markus Montag; Hans Van der Ven; David Wachter; Matthias W Beckmann; Wolfgang Distler
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  [Compulsory treatment in psychiatry: an ethical analysis of the new legal regulations for clinical practice].

Authors:  J Vollmann
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.214

3.  Ethical issues in forensic psychiatric research on mentally disordered offenders.

Authors:  Christian Munthe; Susanna Radovic; Henrik Anckarsäter
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.898

Review 4.  [Compulsory treatment under legal uncertainty: part 2: consequences of legal uncertainty in clinical practice - suggestions for improvement].

Authors:  S Müller; H Walter; H Kunze; N Konrad; A Heinz
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 5.  [Compulsory treatment under legal uncertainty: part 1: the current legal situation on compulsory treatment of patients with psychiatric disorders incapable of consenting].

Authors:  S Müller; H Walter; H Kunze; N Konrad; A Heinz
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.214

  5 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  [Standards for treatment in forensic committment according to § 63 and § 64 of the German criminal code : Interdisciplinary task force of the DGPPN].

Authors:  J L Müller; N Saimeh; P Briken; S Eucker; K Hoffmann; M Koller; T Wolf; M Dudeck; C Hartl; A-K Jakovljevic; V Klein; G Knecht; R Müller-Isberner; J Muysers; K Schiltz; D Seifert; A Simon; H Steinböck; W Stuckmann; W Weissbeck; C Wiesemann; R Zeidler
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  Aims to Reduce Coercive Measures in Forensic Inpatient Treatment: A 9-Year Observational Study.

Authors:  Steffen Lau; Nathalie Brackmann; Andreas Mokros; Elmar Habermeyer
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 4.157

3.  Freedom Restrictive Coercive Measures in Forensic Psychiatry.

Authors:  Erich Flammer; Udo Frank; Tilman Steinert
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.157

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.