Abstract

BackgroundMental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient’s well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Clear practical guidelines to support these MHPs’ decision-making are lacking, amongst others, due to the ethical conflicts within this field. This qualitative interview study contributes to the much-needed empirical research on how MHPs resolve these ethical conflicts in daily clinical practice.Methods31 MHPs working in court-mandated treatment settings were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and our in-depth analysis followed the thematic analysis approach.ResultsWe first outline how mental health professionals perceive their dual loyalty conflict and how they describe their affiliations with the medical and the justice system. Our findings indicate that this positioning was influenced by situational factors, drawing the MHPs at times closer to the caring or controlling poles. Second, our results illustrate how participating MHPs solve their dual loyalty conflict. Participants considered central to motivate the patient, to see the benefits of treatment and its goals. Further, transparent communication with patients and representatives of the justice system was highlighted as key to develop a trustful relationship with the patient and to manage the influences from the different players involved.ConclusionsEven though individual positioning and opinions towards dealing with the influences of the justice system varied, the results of our research show that, in spite of varying positions, the underlying practice is not very different across participating MHPs. Several techniques that allow developing a high-quality therapeutic alliance with the patient are key elements of general psychotherapy. Transparency appears as the crucial factor when communicating with the patient and with representatives of the justice system. More specifically, patients need to be informed since the beginning of therapy about the limits of medical confidentiality. It is also recommended to develop guidelines that define the level of detailed information that should be disclosed when communicating with the authorities of the justice system.

Highlights

  • Mental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient’s well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population

  • Where do I align myself? Understanding dual loyalty Justice system, health system or both The elicitation technique was successful in provoking responses linked to dual loyalty conflicts that mental health professionals face while working in court-mandated treatment settings

  • Our study shows that this theoretical difference about the level of detail that must be communicated to make a report credible for judicial authorities, and situational factors influence the positioning of MHPs and drew them at times either closer to the security or the treatment pole

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient’s well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Mental health care professionals (MHPs) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas because they are placed in a triangular relationship. They play a double role, which forces them to find a balance between the individual patient’s rights and ensuring the safety of the general population [3] They face moral dilemmas towards ensuring the rights of their patients within a healthcare setting as well as caring for the welfare of the public who may be harmed should their patient be released into the community—which we refer to as dual loyalty conflicts—in their daily practice [1]. This paper focuses on the ethical dilemmas that arise in court-mandated treatment settings for persons deprived of liberty, which will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.