暴露的伦理:精神病学和精神保健中的关系生物伦理、责任和系统失败

Q3 Medicine
P. Scognamiglio , D. Morena
{"title":"暴露的伦理:精神病学和精神保健中的关系生物伦理、责任和系统失败","authors":"P. Scognamiglio ,&nbsp;D. Morena","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study examines the ethical, institutional, and legal factors influencing psychiatric care in Italy, highlighting how systemic fragmentation, chronic underfunding, and increasing medico-legal liability contribute to moral distress among clinicians and the adoption of defensive psychiatric practices. The objective is to assess the impact of these factors on both patient outcomes and the capacity of healthcare professionals to deliver effective and ethically sound care.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>Using a qualitative, narrative-based, and reflexive methodology, the paper draws on the testimonies of the authors and a series of anonymized clinical narratives, including but not limited to cases of suicide. These accounts were selected for their paradigmatic value in revealing structural dynamics, rather than for statistical representativeness. The analysis combines narrative ethics and relational bioethics to examine how systemic vulnerability manifests in everyday psychiatric practice.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Fear of litigation and institutional abandonment can significantly influence clinical judgment, resulting in excessive control measures, procedural overreach, and emotional exhaustion among healthcare professionals. Defensive practices – such as over-hospitalization, over-prescription, and hyper-documentation – arise not from negligence but as adaptive responses to institutional fragility.</div></div><div><h3>Perspectives</h3><div>The study offers three key contributions. First, it recalls the One Health paradigm as the only viable framework for bringing together mental healthcare and institutional ethics, highlighting the need for interdependent and ethically sustainable systems of care. Second, it situates the Italian case within a broader reflection on the erosion of meaning in mental health practice within systems that demand total accountability without offering protection to their professionals. Finally, it calls for institutional architectures capable of sustaining both clinical presence and shared responsibility.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethics of exposure: Relational bioethics, responsibility, and systemic failure in psychiatry and mental healthcare\",\"authors\":\"P. Scognamiglio ,&nbsp;D. Morena\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study examines the ethical, institutional, and legal factors influencing psychiatric care in Italy, highlighting how systemic fragmentation, chronic underfunding, and increasing medico-legal liability contribute to moral distress among clinicians and the adoption of defensive psychiatric practices. The objective is to assess the impact of these factors on both patient outcomes and the capacity of healthcare professionals to deliver effective and ethically sound care.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>Using a qualitative, narrative-based, and reflexive methodology, the paper draws on the testimonies of the authors and a series of anonymized clinical narratives, including but not limited to cases of suicide. These accounts were selected for their paradigmatic value in revealing structural dynamics, rather than for statistical representativeness. The analysis combines narrative ethics and relational bioethics to examine how systemic vulnerability manifests in everyday psychiatric practice.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Fear of litigation and institutional abandonment can significantly influence clinical judgment, resulting in excessive control measures, procedural overreach, and emotional exhaustion among healthcare professionals. Defensive practices – such as over-hospitalization, over-prescription, and hyper-documentation – arise not from negligence but as adaptive responses to institutional fragility.</div></div><div><h3>Perspectives</h3><div>The study offers three key contributions. First, it recalls the One Health paradigm as the only viable framework for bringing together mental healthcare and institutional ethics, highlighting the need for interdependent and ethically sustainable systems of care. Second, it situates the Italian case within a broader reflection on the erosion of meaning in mental health practice within systems that demand total accountability without offering protection to their professionals. Finally, it calls for institutional architectures capable of sustaining both clinical presence and shared responsibility.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"33 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525001483\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525001483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了影响意大利精神科护理的伦理、制度和法律因素,强调了系统碎片化、长期资金不足和不断增加的医疗法律责任如何导致临床医生的道德困境和采用防御性精神科实践。目的是评估这些因素对患者结果和医疗保健专业人员提供有效和合乎道德的护理的能力的影响。方法:采用定性的、基于叙述的和反思性的方法,本文借鉴了作者的证词和一系列匿名的临床叙述,包括但不限于自杀病例。选择这些账户是因为它们在揭示结构动态方面的范例价值,而不是统计代表性。该分析结合了叙事伦理学和关系生命伦理学来研究系统脆弱性如何在日常精神病学实践中表现出来。对诉讼和机构遗弃的恐惧会显著影响临床判断,导致医疗保健专业人员控制措施过度、程序过度和情绪耗竭。防御性做法——如过度住院、过度处方和过度记录——并非源于疏忽,而是对制度脆弱性的适应性反应。该研究提供了三个关键贡献。首先,它回顾了“同一个健康”范式,认为这是将精神卫生保健和机构伦理结合在一起的唯一可行框架,强调需要建立相互依存和道德上可持续的护理系统。其次,它将意大利的案例置于一个更广泛的反思中,即在要求完全问责而不为其专业人员提供保护的系统中,精神卫生实践的意义受到侵蚀。最后,它需要能够维持临床存在和共同责任的机构架构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ethics of exposure: Relational bioethics, responsibility, and systemic failure in psychiatry and mental healthcare

Background

This study examines the ethical, institutional, and legal factors influencing psychiatric care in Italy, highlighting how systemic fragmentation, chronic underfunding, and increasing medico-legal liability contribute to moral distress among clinicians and the adoption of defensive psychiatric practices. The objective is to assess the impact of these factors on both patient outcomes and the capacity of healthcare professionals to deliver effective and ethically sound care.

Methodology

Using a qualitative, narrative-based, and reflexive methodology, the paper draws on the testimonies of the authors and a series of anonymized clinical narratives, including but not limited to cases of suicide. These accounts were selected for their paradigmatic value in revealing structural dynamics, rather than for statistical representativeness. The analysis combines narrative ethics and relational bioethics to examine how systemic vulnerability manifests in everyday psychiatric practice.

Discussion

Fear of litigation and institutional abandonment can significantly influence clinical judgment, resulting in excessive control measures, procedural overreach, and emotional exhaustion among healthcare professionals. Defensive practices – such as over-hospitalization, over-prescription, and hyper-documentation – arise not from negligence but as adaptive responses to institutional fragility.

Perspectives

The study offers three key contributions. First, it recalls the One Health paradigm as the only viable framework for bringing together mental healthcare and institutional ethics, highlighting the need for interdependent and ethically sustainable systems of care. Second, it situates the Italian case within a broader reflection on the erosion of meaning in mental health practice within systems that demand total accountability without offering protection to their professionals. Finally, it calls for institutional architectures capable of sustaining both clinical presence and shared responsibility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信