Is the anticipated consent to treatment in advance directives a solution to coercive treatment in forensic psychiatry?

P. Born, Patrick Gehring, A. Rohner, B. Eusterschulte
{"title":"Is the anticipated consent to treatment in advance directives a solution to coercive treatment in forensic psychiatry?","authors":"P. Born, Patrick Gehring, A. Rohner, B. Eusterschulte","doi":"10.15173/IJRR.V2I1.3680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a result of a Federal Constitutional Court decision on coercive treatment, in its state Law the federal state of Hesse has newly regulated the possibility of coercive treatment (Section 7 Paragraph 2 of the Hesse Law on the Enforcement of Court-ordered Hospital Treatment) and expressly incorporated the observance of a patient’s advance directive as defined by Sections 1901a and 1901b of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB]). Having been sentenced to hospital order treatment under section 63 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch [StGB]), in the Vitos Haina Forensic Psychiatric Hospital thirteen patients with schizophrenia stated in a patient’s advance directive that they wished to be treated with certain antipsychotic medication in case of a recurring psychotic episode. In particular, the patient’s advance directive stated that this treatment should be compulsory if necessary. Based on a case vignette this article delineates both the motivation of the patients for such a patient’s advance directive as well as the legal limitations and the enforceability of such a patient’s advance directive. There is no prevailing view in the jurisdiction or literature on the utilization of a patient’s advance directive to guarantee an explicitly desired treatment in case of incapacity for consent. This article wishes to highlight the perspectives of those directly affected and to encourage discussion. Being of special interest for forensic psychiatry, these considerations may also be of importance for treatment considerations in general psychiatry.","PeriodicalId":181328,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk and Recovery","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Risk and Recovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/IJRR.V2I1.3680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As a result of a Federal Constitutional Court decision on coercive treatment, in its state Law the federal state of Hesse has newly regulated the possibility of coercive treatment (Section 7 Paragraph 2 of the Hesse Law on the Enforcement of Court-ordered Hospital Treatment) and expressly incorporated the observance of a patient’s advance directive as defined by Sections 1901a and 1901b of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB]). Having been sentenced to hospital order treatment under section 63 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch [StGB]), in the Vitos Haina Forensic Psychiatric Hospital thirteen patients with schizophrenia stated in a patient’s advance directive that they wished to be treated with certain antipsychotic medication in case of a recurring psychotic episode. In particular, the patient’s advance directive stated that this treatment should be compulsory if necessary. Based on a case vignette this article delineates both the motivation of the patients for such a patient’s advance directive as well as the legal limitations and the enforceability of such a patient’s advance directive. There is no prevailing view in the jurisdiction or literature on the utilization of a patient’s advance directive to guarantee an explicitly desired treatment in case of incapacity for consent. This article wishes to highlight the perspectives of those directly affected and to encourage discussion. Being of special interest for forensic psychiatry, these considerations may also be of importance for treatment considerations in general psychiatry.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预先同意治疗是司法精神病学强制治疗的解决方案吗?
根据联邦宪法法院关于强制治疗的一项裁决,联邦黑森州在其州法律中对强制治疗的可能性进行了新的规定(《黑森州执行法院命令的医院治疗法》第7节第2款),并明确纳入遵守《德国民法典》(b rgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB])第1901a和1901b条所界定的病人事先指示。根据《德国刑法》(Strafgesetzbuch [StGB])第63条,13名精神分裂症患者被判处住院治疗,在Vitos Haina法医精神病院,13名精神分裂症患者在事先指示中表示,他们希望在精神病反复发作的情况下接受某些抗精神病药物治疗。特别是,病人的预先指示指出,这种治疗应该是强制性的,如果必要的话。基于一个案例,本文描述了患者的动机,以及这种患者的预先指示的法律限制和可执行性。在司法管辖区或文献中没有普遍的观点,即利用患者的预先指示来保证在无能力同意的情况下明确期望的治疗。本文希望强调那些直接受影响的人的观点,并鼓励讨论。作为法医精神病学的特殊兴趣,这些考虑对于普通精神病学的治疗考虑也可能很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Violence risk assessment of older adults. The psychiatric aspects of terrorism: Prevention and rehabilitation. Impacts of implementing a forensic treatment mall: A program evaluation A conceptual framework for the management of a COVID-19 outbreak on a secure forensic Inpatient unit. Convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of two instruments to assess recidivism risk among released individuals who have sexually offended: The SORAG and the VRAG-R.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1