Coercion in psychiatric care

Can paternalism justify coercion?

Mi Kyung Seo, Seung Hyun Kim, Minkyu Rhee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: It has long been debated whether coercion can be justified as paternalism in the field of mental health and it is still a continuing issue of controversy today. Aims: This study analyses whether coercive intervention in mental health can be justified by the basic assumptions of paternalists: the assumption of incompetence, the assumption of dangerousness and the assumption of impairment. Method: This study involved 248 patients: 158 (63.7%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 90 (36.3%) were diagnosed with mood disorder. In this study, experiences of coercion were divided into legal status, subjective (perceived coercion) and objective experiences (experienced coercion). Results: The assumption of incompetence was justified in all three categories of coercion whereas the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any. The assumption of impairment was not justified in legal status and perceived coercion, but provided a partial explanation to serve as a basis for justifying experienced coercive measures. Conclusions: It can be noted that mental health experts who support paternalism without question must reconsider their previous methods. Above all, the reason why the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any of the categories of coercion was because coercive intervention used to prevent harm to oneself and others must be very carefully carried out.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)217-223
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry
Volume59
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 May 1

Fingerprint

Paternalism
Coercion
Psychiatry
Dangerous Behavior
Mental Health
Jurisprudence
Mood Disorders
Schizophrenia

Keywords

  • Coercion in psychiatric care
  • Mental health service
  • Paternalism
  • Perceived coercion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Coercion in psychiatric care : Can paternalism justify coercion? / Seo, Mi Kyung; Kim, Seung Hyun; Rhee, Minkyu.

In: International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 59, No. 3, 01.05.2013, p. 217-223.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{98987087049e40f1bafa6e33b29d3df4,
title = "Coercion in psychiatric care: Can paternalism justify coercion?",
abstract = "Background: It has long been debated whether coercion can be justified as paternalism in the field of mental health and it is still a continuing issue of controversy today. Aims: This study analyses whether coercive intervention in mental health can be justified by the basic assumptions of paternalists: the assumption of incompetence, the assumption of dangerousness and the assumption of impairment. Method: This study involved 248 patients: 158 (63.7{\%}) were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 90 (36.3{\%}) were diagnosed with mood disorder. In this study, experiences of coercion were divided into legal status, subjective (perceived coercion) and objective experiences (experienced coercion). Results: The assumption of incompetence was justified in all three categories of coercion whereas the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any. The assumption of impairment was not justified in legal status and perceived coercion, but provided a partial explanation to serve as a basis for justifying experienced coercive measures. Conclusions: It can be noted that mental health experts who support paternalism without question must reconsider their previous methods. Above all, the reason why the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any of the categories of coercion was because coercive intervention used to prevent harm to oneself and others must be very carefully carried out.",
keywords = "Coercion in psychiatric care, Mental health service, Paternalism, Perceived coercion",
author = "Seo, {Mi Kyung} and Kim, {Seung Hyun} and Minkyu Rhee",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0020764011431543",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "217--223",
journal = "International Journal of Social Psychiatry",
issn = "0020-7640",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coercion in psychiatric care

T2 - Can paternalism justify coercion?

AU - Seo, Mi Kyung

AU - Kim, Seung Hyun

AU - Rhee, Minkyu

PY - 2013/5/1

Y1 - 2013/5/1

N2 - Background: It has long been debated whether coercion can be justified as paternalism in the field of mental health and it is still a continuing issue of controversy today. Aims: This study analyses whether coercive intervention in mental health can be justified by the basic assumptions of paternalists: the assumption of incompetence, the assumption of dangerousness and the assumption of impairment. Method: This study involved 248 patients: 158 (63.7%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 90 (36.3%) were diagnosed with mood disorder. In this study, experiences of coercion were divided into legal status, subjective (perceived coercion) and objective experiences (experienced coercion). Results: The assumption of incompetence was justified in all three categories of coercion whereas the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any. The assumption of impairment was not justified in legal status and perceived coercion, but provided a partial explanation to serve as a basis for justifying experienced coercive measures. Conclusions: It can be noted that mental health experts who support paternalism without question must reconsider their previous methods. Above all, the reason why the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any of the categories of coercion was because coercive intervention used to prevent harm to oneself and others must be very carefully carried out.

AB - Background: It has long been debated whether coercion can be justified as paternalism in the field of mental health and it is still a continuing issue of controversy today. Aims: This study analyses whether coercive intervention in mental health can be justified by the basic assumptions of paternalists: the assumption of incompetence, the assumption of dangerousness and the assumption of impairment. Method: This study involved 248 patients: 158 (63.7%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 90 (36.3%) were diagnosed with mood disorder. In this study, experiences of coercion were divided into legal status, subjective (perceived coercion) and objective experiences (experienced coercion). Results: The assumption of incompetence was justified in all three categories of coercion whereas the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any. The assumption of impairment was not justified in legal status and perceived coercion, but provided a partial explanation to serve as a basis for justifying experienced coercive measures. Conclusions: It can be noted that mental health experts who support paternalism without question must reconsider their previous methods. Above all, the reason why the assumption of dangerousness was not justified in any of the categories of coercion was because coercive intervention used to prevent harm to oneself and others must be very carefully carried out.

KW - Coercion in psychiatric care

KW - Mental health service

KW - Paternalism

KW - Perceived coercion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879198122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879198122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0020764011431543

DO - 10.1177/0020764011431543

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 217

EP - 223

JO - International Journal of Social Psychiatry

JF - International Journal of Social Psychiatry

SN - 0020-7640

IS - 3

ER -