A Triad Approach to Best Interests when Responding to Discharge Demands from Hospitalized Patients Lacking in Mental Capacity to Decide on Treatment

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS
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,&nbsp;Nydia Camelia Mohd Rais,&nbsp;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).

没有精神能力同意治疗的住院病人可能会违背医嘱要求出院。如果计划继续治疗,可能需要对这些病人进行强制监护,包括使用强制手段。这就引起了有关剥夺人的自由的伦理问题。对病人的意愿和价值观及其最大利益的判断有时可能会有所不同,这取决于受托进行评估的评估员或临床小组。因此,我们建议临床医生在确定这类病人的最佳利益时采用以下三要素,以确保伦理和法律上的合理性以及方法上的一致性。首先,治疗应作为一种救援反应。其次,任何限制措施都必须与可预见的目的相称。病人的自由和自主权应通过治疗得到加强。第三,病人家属必须给予支持。本文分析了在两个临床病例中使用三要素方法的情况,这两个病例都被评估为缺乏决定治疗的精神能力,并坚持要求出院。利用这种方法,我们可以证明如何得出两种截然不同的结果,一种是默许病人自愿出院,另一种是不默许病人自愿出院。我们还研究了三位一体方法与《联合国残疾人权利公约》规定的义务的兼容性。
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
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.
×
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