Article Text
Abstract
The practice of covertly administering medication is controversial. Although condemned by some as overly paternalistic, others have suggested that it may be acceptable if patients have permanent mental incapacity and refuse needed treatment. Ethical, legal, and clinical considerations become more complex when the mental incapacity is temporary and when the medication actually serves to restore autonomy. We discuss these issues in the context of a young man with schizophrenia. His mother had been giving him antipsychotic medication covertly in his soup. Should the doctor continue to provide a prescription, thus allowing this to continue? We discuss this case based on the “four principles” ethical framework, addressing the conflict between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence, the role of antipsychotics as an autonomy restoring agent, truth telling and the balance between individual versus family autonomy.
- decision making
- truth telling
- psychiatric ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Bioethics in a clinic for women with psychosis
- Informed consent in neurosurgery—translating ethical theory into action
- Covert medication and patient identity: placing the ethical analysis in a worldwide context
- The secret art of managing healthcare expenses: investigating implicit rationing and autonomy in public healthcare systems
- Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: who should decide?
- Covert administration of medication in food: a worthwhile moral gamble?
- The impossibility of informed consent?
- Dignifying death and the morality of elective ventilation
- Op GRITROCK ethics; the way of things to come?
- Good clinical practice and informed consent are inseparable