[Access to electroconvulsive therapy for people lacking decision making capacity and as nonvoluntary treatment : Expert consensus and statement of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN)].

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
David Zilles-Wegner, Jakov Gather, Alkomiet Hasan, Jürgen L Müller, Thomas Pollmächer, Alfred Simon, Tilman Steinert, Alexander Sartorius
{"title":"[Access to electroconvulsive therapy for people lacking decision making capacity and as nonvoluntary treatment : Expert consensus and statement of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN)].","authors":"David Zilles-Wegner, Jakov Gather, Alkomiet Hasan, Jürgen L Müller, Thomas Pollmächer, Alfred Simon, Tilman Steinert, Alexander Sartorius","doi":"10.1007/s00115-025-01816-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a clinically well-established, evidence-based procedure for the treatment of particularly severe or treatment-resistant psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. A considerable number of patients who require ECT are unable to provide informed consent due to their medical condition. Both international and national studies show that restrictive laws and legal rulings can hinder or even prevent the use of ECT in patients lacking the capacity to provide informed consent or in cases of nonvoluntary treatment (coercive treatment). Patients with indications for ECT who lack the capacity to consent constitute a vulnerable group, often with no viable alternative therapy available. The decision to administer ECT to individuals lacking the capacity to consent, particularly as a nonvoluntary treatment, is highly complex in terms of legal and medical ethics aspects because depending on the circumstances, both administering and withholding ECT can profoundly impact the patient's fundamental rights. The available evidence shows that patients initially treated against their will exhibit good overall response rates, with equally high retrospective and prospective approval for therapy compared to patients who initially consented to treatment.Together with the medical ethics considerations the authors conclude that the use of ECT should adhere to the same ethical and normative standards as all other medical interventions. This also applies to cases involving involuntary treatment. Adopting a more restrictive approach to ECT compared to other medical measures is neither medically nor ethically justified. Structural and legal barriers restricting access to necessary treatment for patients with severe and potentially life-threatening conditions should be critically reviewed and, when possible and necessary, removed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49770,"journal":{"name":"Nervenarzt","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nervenarzt","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-025-01816-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a clinically well-established, evidence-based procedure for the treatment of particularly severe or treatment-resistant psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. A considerable number of patients who require ECT are unable to provide informed consent due to their medical condition. Both international and national studies show that restrictive laws and legal rulings can hinder or even prevent the use of ECT in patients lacking the capacity to provide informed consent or in cases of nonvoluntary treatment (coercive treatment). Patients with indications for ECT who lack the capacity to consent constitute a vulnerable group, often with no viable alternative therapy available. The decision to administer ECT to individuals lacking the capacity to consent, particularly as a nonvoluntary treatment, is highly complex in terms of legal and medical ethics aspects because depending on the circumstances, both administering and withholding ECT can profoundly impact the patient's fundamental rights. The available evidence shows that patients initially treated against their will exhibit good overall response rates, with equally high retrospective and prospective approval for therapy compared to patients who initially consented to treatment.Together with the medical ethics considerations the authors conclude that the use of ECT should adhere to the same ethical and normative standards as all other medical interventions. This also applies to cases involving involuntary treatment. Adopting a more restrictive approach to ECT compared to other medical measures is neither medically nor ethically justified. Structural and legal barriers restricting access to necessary treatment for patients with severe and potentially life-threatening conditions should be critically reviewed and, when possible and necessary, removed.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nervenarzt
Nervenarzt 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
18.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Nervenarzt is an internationally recognized journal addressing neurologists and psychiatrists working in clinical or practical environments. Essential findings and current information from neurology, psychiatry as well as neuropathology, neurosurgery up to psychotherapy are presented. Review articles provide an overview on selected topics and offer the reader a summary of current findings from all fields of neurology and psychiatry. Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of important clinical studies and serve the scientific exchange. Review articles under the rubric ''Continuing Medical Education'' present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.
×
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