We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Whether anorexic patients should be able to refuse treatment when this refusal potentially has a fatal outcome is a vexed topic. A recent proposal for a new category of “terminal anorexia” suggests criteria when a move to palliative care or even physician-assisted suicide might be justified. The author argues that this proposed diagnosis presents a false sense of certainty of the illness trajectory by conceptualizing anorexia in analogy with physical disorders and stressing the effects of starvation. Furthermore, this conceptualization is in conflict with the claim that individuals who meet the diagnostic criteria for terminal anorexia have decision-making capacity. It should therefore be rejected.
The objective of the study was to determine the level of involuntary treatment that mood disorder patients and their families wish in the event of a manic or hypomanic episode.
Method
A survey was conducted within two self-help organizations during two conventions gathering over 500 patients, along with families and caregivers. A clinical vignette depicting an uncollaborative hypomanic patient beginning to endanger his professional and financial situation and to put undue stress upon his family was presented and followed by an eight-item questionnaire. The level of coercive treatment seen as appropriate was measured by visual analogue scales.
Results
The 503 respondents disagreed partially with the statement that the patient should decide by himself about his hospitalization and partially favored some involuntary treatment over treatment refusal. There was no difference between patients, relatives and caregivers related to acceptance of coercive hospitalization and treatment. Respondents assigned a major role to treating teams and family members in decisions for coercive treatment.
Conclusion
Most respondents (including a majority of patients) support a moderate degree of coercive treatment in the event of a hypomanic or manic state. Surveys of opinions from concerned people could influence, practice, legislation and possibly advance directives that could be written by patients or patients organizations.
To find out to what extent coercion and restrictions are used in psychiatric inpatient treatment and with which patient characteristics the use of coercion is associated. To this end, the hospital records of 1,543 admissions (six-month admission samples) to the psychiatric clinics in three Finnish university towns were evaluated by retrospective chart review. The study clinics provide all psychiatric inpatient treatment for the working-age population in their catchment areas. Use of coercion and restrictions was recorded in a structured form. Coercion and restrictions were applied to 32% of the patients. Mechanical restraints were used on 10% of the patients, and forced medication on 8%. Compared to international statistics the figures in the current study are high.
A series of eleven patients prescribed intramuscular clozapine at five UK sites is presented. Using routinely collected clinical data, we describe the use, efficacy and safety of this treatment modality.
Results
We administered 188 doses of intramuscular clozapine to eight patients. The remaining three patients accepted oral medication. With the exception of minor injection site pain and nodules, side-effects were as expected with oral clozapine, and there were no serious untoward events. Nine patients were successfully established on oral clozapine with significant improvement in their clinical presentations.
Clinical implications
Although a novel formulation in the UK, we have shown that intramuscular clozapine can be used safely and effectively when the oral route is initially refused.
This article examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscientious refusal—refusal to offer abortion services—is not. I seek to put pressure on the orthodoxy by (1) motivating the view that either both kinds of conscientious refusal are permissible or neither is, and (2) critiquing two attempts to buttress it.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.