{"title":"Insight and the Capacity to Refuse Treatment with Electroconvulsive Therapy.","authors":"Russ Scott, Steve Prowacki","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All Australian jurisdictions have statutory provisions governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. Cases in which the patient lacks insight into their psychotic illness and need for treatment and refuses to have ECT are particularly poignant. In Re ICO [2023] QMHC 1, the Queensland Mental Health Court considered whether a patient with a treatment-resistant psychotic illness had decision-making capacity to refuse ECT. The Court also considered whether the patient had been provided with an adequate explanation of the proposed treatment including the expected benefits, risks and adverse effects of ECT. As well as deciding whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances, the Court considered whether there were alternative treatments including another trial of the oral antipsychotic clozapine. This article reviews issues relating to lack of insight in persons with psychotic illness and relevant considerations for determining capacity to decline ECT.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"31 2","pages":"273-323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
All Australian jurisdictions have statutory provisions governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. Cases in which the patient lacks insight into their psychotic illness and need for treatment and refuses to have ECT are particularly poignant. In Re ICO [2023] QMHC 1, the Queensland Mental Health Court considered whether a patient with a treatment-resistant psychotic illness had decision-making capacity to refuse ECT. The Court also considered whether the patient had been provided with an adequate explanation of the proposed treatment including the expected benefits, risks and adverse effects of ECT. As well as deciding whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances, the Court considered whether there were alternative treatments including another trial of the oral antipsychotic clozapine. This article reviews issues relating to lack of insight in persons with psychotic illness and relevant considerations for determining capacity to decline ECT.