Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients in Alaska

Gail Tasch, P. Gøtzsche
{"title":"Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients in Alaska","authors":"Gail Tasch, P. Gøtzsche","doi":"10.1080/17522439.2023.2183428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Psychiatric patients’ human rights are often violated when forced treatment orders are issued. Methods We assessed the records for 30 consecutive petitions for mental health commitment in which an involuntary medication order was requested, from Anchorage, Alaska. Results In 29 cases, the commitment petition was granted. The forced medication order was granted in 27 of the 30 cases. In 26 cases, in violation of previous Supreme Court rulings, the patients’ desires, fears, wishes and experiences were ignored even when the patients were afraid that the neuroleptics might kill them or when they had experienced serious harms such as tardive dyskinesia. The ethical and legal imperative of offering a less intrusive treatment was also ignored. Benzodiazepines were not offered. Psychotherapy was not offered or mentioned in 15 cases. The providers claimed, contrary to the evidence, that psychotherapy does not work. Dicussion The legal procedures can best be characterized as a sham, in which the patients are defenseless. The power imbalance and abuse were extreme, and several of the psychiatrists who argued for forced treatment obtained court orders for administering drugs and dosages that were dangerous. We suggest forced medication be abandoned.","PeriodicalId":46344,"journal":{"name":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2023.2183428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Psychiatric patients’ human rights are often violated when forced treatment orders are issued. Methods We assessed the records for 30 consecutive petitions for mental health commitment in which an involuntary medication order was requested, from Anchorage, Alaska. Results In 29 cases, the commitment petition was granted. The forced medication order was granted in 27 of the 30 cases. In 26 cases, in violation of previous Supreme Court rulings, the patients’ desires, fears, wishes and experiences were ignored even when the patients were afraid that the neuroleptics might kill them or when they had experienced serious harms such as tardive dyskinesia. The ethical and legal imperative of offering a less intrusive treatment was also ignored. Benzodiazepines were not offered. Psychotherapy was not offered or mentioned in 15 cases. The providers claimed, contrary to the evidence, that psychotherapy does not work. Dicussion The legal procedures can best be characterized as a sham, in which the patients are defenseless. The power imbalance and abuse were extreme, and several of the psychiatrists who argued for forced treatment obtained court orders for administering drugs and dosages that were dangerous. We suggest forced medication be abandoned.
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
有系统地侵犯病人的权利和安全:在阿拉斯加对30名病人进行强制用药
摘要背景精神科患者的人权往往受到强制治疗令的侵犯。方法:我们评估了阿拉斯加州安克雷奇市30例精神健康承诺连续请愿的记录,其中要求非自愿用药。结果29例患者的承诺申请被批准。在这30个案例中,有27个获得了强制服药令。在26个案例中,患者的欲望、恐惧、愿望和经历被忽视,这违反了最高法院之前的判决,即使患者担心抗精神病药可能会杀死他们,或者他们经历了严重的伤害,如迟发性运动障碍。提供较少侵入性治疗的道德和法律必要性也被忽视了。没有提供苯二氮卓类药物。15个病例没有提供或提及心理治疗。提供者声称,与证据相反,心理治疗不起作用。法律程序最好被描述为一场骗局,在这场骗局中,病人毫无防备。权力的不平衡和滥用是极端的,一些主张强制治疗的精神科医生获得了法庭的命令,使用了危险的药物和剂量。我们建议放弃强制用药。
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
The impact of familial involvement on dropout in a culturally informed group therapy for people diagnosed with 'schizophrenia'. A mixed-methods validation of the 15-item English version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) in an adult mental health inpatient rehabilitation setting Exploring service users’ and practitioners’ priorities regarding outcomes of cognitive behavioural therapy for distressing voices: a thematic analysis The association between social identity and paranoia through the mediators of trust and hostile attribution bias in a UK general population study Exploring personal accounts of the facilitators and barriers to seeking help for first-episode psychosis (FEP): a meta-ethnography
×
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