These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Single or double moral standards? Professional ethics of psychiatrists regarding self-determination, rights of third parties and involuntary treatment].
    Author: Pollmächer T.
    Journal: Nervenarzt; 2015 Sep; 86(9):1148-56. PubMed ID: 26076865.
    Abstract:
    The current intensive discussion on the legal and moral aspects of involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients raises a number of ethical issues. Physicians are unambiguously obligated to protect patient welfare and autonomy; however, in psychiatric patients disease-related restrictions in the capacity of self-determination and behaviors endangering the rights of third parties can seriously challenge this unambiguity. Therefore, psychiatry is assumed to have a double function and is also obligated to third parties and to society in general. Acceptance of such a kind of double obligation carries the risk of double moral standards, placing the psychiatrist ethically outside the community of physicians and questioning the unrestricted obligation towards the patient. The present article formulates a moral position, which places the psychiatrist, like all other physicians, exclusively on the side of the patient in terms of professional ethics and discusses the practical problems arising from this moral position.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]