Discussion On Civil Commitment For Mental Health Problems

Discussion Civil Commitment For Mental Health Problemsethical Or Not

Civil commitment for mental health problems involves the involuntary detention of individuals in psychiatric facilities for assessment or treatment based on criteria such as danger to self or others or inability to seek treatment voluntarily. This practice raises significant ethical concerns related to personal liberty and autonomy, as it involves depriving individuals of their freedom against their will. Conversely, it aims to protect both the individual and the community from potential harm, raising questions about the balance between individual rights and societal safety.

From an ethical perspective aligned with APA guidelines, supporting civil commitment may be justified when it is necessary to prevent imminent harm, uphold beneficence, and ensure treatment for individuals with severe mental health issues. Ethical guidelines such as beneficence and non-maleficence support interventions that promote well-being and prevent harm, which can justify involuntary commitment when individuals cannot consent due to their mental state. For example, cases where patients with severe psychosis threaten safety demonstrate the need for civil commitment to prevent tragic outcomes, balancing personal rights with community safety through ethical reasoning grounded in the principles of mental health ethics.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the ethical considerations of civil commitment for mental health problems, it is crucial to unpack both the moral implications and the legal frameworks that guide psychiatric involuntary treatment. The core ethical dilemma centers around respecting individual autonomy while also protecting individuals and society from harm. Civil commitment, by its nature, challenges the principle of autonomy since it involves depriving an individual of liberty without their consent. However, ethical principles such as beneficence — acting in the best interest of the patient — and non-maleficence — avoiding harm — serve as strong justifications for such interventions when individuals are unable to make informed decisions due to their mental state (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). This duality necessitates a careful balance, ensuring that civil commitment is not used arbitrarily but adheres to strict legal and ethical standards that safeguard human rights.

Supporters argue that civil commitment aligns with ethical guidelines when it is employed as a protective measure to prevent serious harm, especially in cases where mental illness severely impairs judgment and reality testing. The legal criteria for civil commitment—such as imminent danger to self or others—are designed to serve these ethical considerations by ensuring intervention is only used when truly necessary. A compelling case supporting this position involves patients suffering from schizophrenia who, during psychotic episodes, threaten violence or neglect their health, thereby jeopardizing their safety and that of others. In such cases, involuntary treatment is ethically justified when it prevents the deterioration of health and promotes recovery, respecting the principle of beneficence (Meeks & Sullivan, 2011).

Critical points in favor of civil commitment include the protection of vulnerable individuals who lack decision-making capacity during mental health crises, the potential to prevent tragedies such as suicide or violence, and the opportunity to provide life-saving treatment that patients might refuse when competent. These points are supported by scholarly content indicating that involuntary treatment, when applied ethically and judiciously, upholds societal safety while also offering a pathway to recovery (Borum et al., 2008). Critics warn against misuse, emphasizing the need for strict oversight, but, ethically, the principle of beneficence justifies civil commitment under specific, evidence-based circumstances.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
  • Borum, R., Bossarte, R., & Van Dorn, R. (2008). Risks for violence in people with mental illness. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15(2), 1-18.
  • Meeks, S., & Sullivan, C. (2011). Ethical considerations in involuntary psychiatric treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 33(3), 233-246.
  • Fulford, K. W., et al. (2012). Ethical dilemmas in mental health practice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 213-217.
  • Wilkinson, R., & Fagan, T. (2016). Legal and ethical issues in involuntary hospitalization. Clinical Psychology Review, 48, 95-104.
  • Secker, J., et al. (2017). Human rights and mental health: Ethical implications of involuntary treatment. Health and Human Rights Journal, 19(2), 277-290.
  • Skeem, J., et al. (2014). Ethical challenges and guidelines in mental health treatment. Psychiatry, 77(5), 499-506.
  • Stroud, R., et al. (2010). The ethics of involuntary treatment. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(3), 173-177.
  • Torrey, E. F., et al. (2008). The public health impact of involuntary treatment: Ethical and legal perspectives. Psychiatric Services, 59(9), 985-989.
  • Kutchins, H., & Kirk, S. (2012). Ethical issues in crisis intervention and involuntary treatment. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 15(2), 139-150.

Related Assignments