Can you help with this question regarding patient rights and the mentally ill?

Question

Here's the scenario: If you had been involuntarily committed (deemed a threat to yourself through psych evaluation), and you felt your patient rights were violated because you were coaxed (more like coerced) into a treatment that you initially made it very clear you did not want (e.g., a specific drug therapy) but at the time were too afraid to assert your rights in front of the professonals on the psych ward, should you seek legal services, or would it be a waste of time because it would be your word against the professionals?

By the way, this is an ethical question not a real case.

Answer 1

The key to your question is "involuntarily committed", at that point you became a ward of the state, and the mental health department. The appropriate treatment, is determined by those you are in the care of.

Answer 2

I know this is a hypothetical question, but there is an instrument in the United States (if that's where you are) called a Psychiatric Advanced Directive. In that instrument, you can discuss your treatment concerns when you are sufficiently competent and away from coercion that nobody could seriously question what your wishes are. I put one together, and had my brother and psychiatrist witness it, so it's bombproof. In that document, you can spell out WHY you want or don't want certain treatments, and assign a person to make decisions for you. You are more likely to avoid an involuntary commitment, as well.

My state (Minnesota) has a mental health Ombudsman, plus a few other legal resources that a person in the hospital can access, although most of our state hospitals are (thankfully) closed.

Answer 3

even with involuntary admission (sectioning) the patient still has rights but as the patient has been evaluated as "unfit to make clear and informed judgments on their health, well being and safety" It is then taken out of the patients hands.

A patient is only admitted under these terms IF they pose a threat to themselves or others, so the rights to refuse certain treatments are subjugated under the Mental Health Act. fortunately this involves constant evaluation of the patient and the 'human rights' of the patient are general maintained.

In order for the patient to make a legal claim that they were held against their will they would have to prove that they were of no harm to themselves or others, that they were able to clear and informed choices for themselves at the time.

It would be very difficult prove, unless the mental health act was clearly broken.

Answer 4

Ethical or a real case, each state has it's laws and those are governed by the U.S. mental heath/psychology/psychiatary departments. I DO understand what you are referring to.

Technically, one 'could' give consent when in a involuntary situation. [certain admissions to jail, drugged, suicidal, mental retardation ['didn't want to use that term, but...], etc., or in a psychotic state, NOT capable of understanding one's own language...]
But the larger concern would be for that involuntary to NOT have his/her choices made by him/herself IF CAPABLE of understanding.... THAT, being coerced, is where the involuntary validated 'rights' have been consented to or not, depending on each person's circumstance. Sometimes they are 'forced' to be consented to, depending on the issues. [OH, those thin lines. *sigh*] It depends on the 'betterment' of the individual here, like treatments, that will help that person to become "normal" for their self of wellbeing.

A consent means that one had "understood" their rights when explained to them in a verbal understanding, between both parties, of such information[s]. There are times when no consent was given due to any morbid or violent condition[s] that prevented that involuntary [or voluntary!] person to allow consent. Understand, I hope?

There is never a time when one can't seek help from a legal professional! One's rights have to be foremost in any given situation. Let's not forget about that "power of attorney" factor, also!
No person should be 'coerced' to do something against their will; yet, some decisions/interventions are made due to issues that are current at that moment, that would warrant that judgement made by a psych. professional at the time.
I hope you can understand what I've meant here.

Answer 5

I believe it would be difficult to argue. There would have to be clear evidence that the patient was coerced into this treatment. I think the patient would be put on the defensive which may cause more harm at the patient's emotional expense.

Answer 6

The hypothetical client's "fear" to assert his/her rights does not mean that the professionals offering the treatment/medication are negligent in some way. If the client gave informed consent, he gave informed consent. Period. In addition, unless the medication caused some substantial harm, there is no "case" at all. Bottom line: it would be a waste of time to bring it into court.

Answer 7

If you were coerced, you have legal grounds for a case against the hosptial.