See Muah Lee, Nydia Camelia Mohd Rais, Gerard Porter
{"title":"A Triad Approach to Best Interests when Responding to Discharge Demands from Hospitalized Patients Lacking in Mental Capacity to Decide on Treatment","authors":"See Muah Lee, Nydia Camelia Mohd Rais, Gerard Porter","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00309-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hospitalized patients lacking the mental capacity to consent to treatment may demand to be discharged from the hospital against medical advice. Forced custody of these patients, including the use of restraints, may be required if the plan is to proceed with treatment. This raises ethical concerns with regard to depriving people of their liberty. The determination of the wishes and values of the patient and her best interests may sometimes vary, depending on the assessor or the clinical team entrusted to perform the evaluation. We therefore propose the following triad for clinicians when determining the best interests for this group of patients to ensure ethical and legal soundness as well as in providing consistency in approach. Firstly, the treatment should serve as a rescue response. Secondly, any restraint deployed must be proportionate with a foreseeable end. Her liberty and autonomy interests should be enhanced by the treatment. Thirdly, the patient’s family must be supportive. This paper analyzes the use of the triad approach on two clinical cases, both assessed as lacking in mental capacity to decide on treatment and insisting to be discharged. Using this approach, we could justify how the contrasting outcomes, one in which the voluntary discharge was acquiesced versus the other, which was not acquiesced, were reached. We also examine the compatibility of the triad approach with the obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"129 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00309-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Hospitalized patients lacking the mental capacity to consent to treatment may demand to be discharged from the hospital against medical advice. Forced custody of these patients, including the use of restraints, may be required if the plan is to proceed with treatment. This raises ethical concerns with regard to depriving people of their liberty. The determination of the wishes and values of the patient and her best interests may sometimes vary, depending on the assessor or the clinical team entrusted to perform the evaluation. We therefore propose the following triad for clinicians when determining the best interests for this group of patients to ensure ethical and legal soundness as well as in providing consistency in approach. Firstly, the treatment should serve as a rescue response. Secondly, any restraint deployed must be proportionate with a foreseeable end. Her liberty and autonomy interests should be enhanced by the treatment. Thirdly, the patient’s family must be supportive. This paper analyzes the use of the triad approach on two clinical cases, both assessed as lacking in mental capacity to decide on treatment and insisting to be discharged. Using this approach, we could justify how the contrasting outcomes, one in which the voluntary discharge was acquiesced versus the other, which was not acquiesced, were reached. We also examine the compatibility of the triad approach with the obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
期刊介绍:
Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.