When Treatment Pressures Become Coercive: A Context-Sensitive Model of Informal Coercion in Mental Healthcare.

IF 17 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
American Journal of Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-28 DOI:10.1080/15265161.2023.2232754
Christin Hempeler, Esther Braun, Sarah Potthoff, Jakov Gather, Matthé Scholten
{"title":"When Treatment Pressures Become Coercive: A Context-Sensitive Model of Informal Coercion in Mental Healthcare.","authors":"Christin Hempeler, Esther Braun, Sarah Potthoff, Jakov Gather, Matthé Scholten","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2023.2232754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Treatment pressures are communicative strategies that mental health professionals use to influence the decision-making of mental health service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment. Szmukler and Appelbaum describe a spectrum of treatment pressures, which encompasses persuasion, interpersonal leverage, offers and threats, arguing that only a particular type of threat amounts to informal coercion. We contend that this account of informal coercion is insufficiently sensitive to context and fails to recognize the fundamental power imbalance in mental healthcare. Based on a set of counterexamples, we argue that what makes a proposal coercive is not whether service users will actually be made worse off if they reject the proposal, but rather whether they have the justified belief that this is the case. Whether this belief is justified depends on the presence of certain contextual factors, such as strong dependency on professionals and the salient possibility of formal coercion.</p>","PeriodicalId":50962,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"74-86"},"PeriodicalIF":17.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2232754","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Treatment pressures are communicative strategies that mental health professionals use to influence the decision-making of mental health service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment. Szmukler and Appelbaum describe a spectrum of treatment pressures, which encompasses persuasion, interpersonal leverage, offers and threats, arguing that only a particular type of threat amounts to informal coercion. We contend that this account of informal coercion is insufficiently sensitive to context and fails to recognize the fundamental power imbalance in mental healthcare. Based on a set of counterexamples, we argue that what makes a proposal coercive is not whether service users will actually be made worse off if they reject the proposal, but rather whether they have the justified belief that this is the case. Whether this belief is justified depends on the presence of certain contextual factors, such as strong dependency on professionals and the salient possibility of formal coercion.

当治疗压力变成胁迫时:心理保健中非正式胁迫的情境敏感模型》(A Context-Sensitive Model of Informal Coercion in Mental Healthcare)。
治疗压力是心理健康专业人员用来影响心理健康服务使用者的决策并提高他们对建议治疗的依从性的沟通策略。Szmukler 和 Appelbaum 描述了一系列治疗压力,其中包括说服、人际杠杆、提议和威胁,并认为只有特定类型的威胁才构成非正式强迫。我们认为,这种对非正式胁迫的解释对背景不够敏感,也没有认识到精神医疗中根本的权力不平衡。基于一系列反例,我们认为,使一项建议具有胁迫性的原因并不在于服务使用者如果拒绝该建议,他们的境况是否会变得更糟,而在于他们是否有理由相信情况会如此。这种信念是否合理,取决于是否存在某些背景因素,如对专业人员的强烈依赖和正式胁迫的显著可能性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Bioethics
American Journal of Bioethics 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
26.90%
发文量
250
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) is a renowned global publication focused on bioethics. It tackles pressing ethical challenges in the realm of health sciences. With a commitment to the original vision of bioethics, AJOB explores the social consequences of advancements in biomedicine. It sparks meaningful discussions that have proved invaluable to a wide range of professionals, including judges, senators, journalists, scholars, and educators. AJOB covers various areas of interest, such as the ethical implications of clinical research, ensuring access to healthcare services, and the responsible handling of medical records and data. The journal welcomes contributions in the form of target articles presenting original research, open peer commentaries facilitating a dialogue, book reviews, and responses to open peer commentaries. By presenting insightful and authoritative content, AJOB continues to shape the field of bioethics and engage diverse stakeholders in crucial conversations about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and society.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信