Scholarlink

<p>Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a&#xa0;clinically well-established, evidence-based procedure for the treatment of particularly severe or treatment-resistant psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. A&#xa0;considerable number of patients who require ECT are unable to provide informed consent due to their medical condition. Both international and national studies show that restrictive laws and legal rulings can hinder or even prevent the use of ECT in patients lacking the capacity to provide informed consent or in cases of nonvoluntary treatment (coercive treatment). Patients with indications for ECT who lack the capacity to consent constitute a&#xa0;vulnerable group, often with no viable alternative therapy available. The decision to administer ECT to individuals lacking the capacity to consent, particularly as a&#xa0;nonvoluntary treatment, is highly complex in terms of legal and medical ethics aspects because depending on the circumstances, both administering and withholding ECT can profoundly impact the patient’s fundamental rights. The available evidence shows that patients initially treated against their will exhibit good overall response rates, with equally high retrospective and prospective approval for therapy compared to patients who initially consented to treatment.</p><p>Together with the medical ethics considerations the authors conclude that the use of ECT should adhere to the same ethical and normative standards as all other medical interventions. This also applies to cases involving involuntary treatment. Adopting a&#xa0;more restrictive approach to ECT compared to other medical measures is neither medically nor ethically justified. Structural and legal barriers restricting access to necessary treatment for patients with severe and potentially life-threatening conditions should be critically reviewed and, when possible and necessary, removed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Zugang zur Elektrokonvulsionstherapie bei Menschen mit fehlender Einwilligungsfähigkeit und als Behandlung gegen den natürlichen Willen

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月5日

查看全文
  • David Zilles-Wegner,
  • Jakov Gather,
  • Alkomiet Hasan,
  • Jürgen L. Müller,
  • Thomas Pollmächer,
  • Alfred Simon,
  • Tilman Steinert,
  • Alexander Sartorius

摘要

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a clinically well-established, evidence-based procedure for the treatment of particularly severe or treatment-resistant psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. A considerable number of patients who require ECT are unable to provide informed consent due to their medical condition. Both international and national studies show that restrictive laws and legal rulings can hinder or even prevent the use of ECT in patients lacking the capacity to provide informed consent or in cases of nonvoluntary treatment (coercive treatment). Patients with indications for ECT who lack the capacity to consent constitute a vulnerable group, often with no viable alternative therapy available. The decision to administer ECT to individuals lacking the capacity to consent, particularly as a nonvoluntary treatment, is highly complex in terms of legal and medical ethics aspects because depending on the circumstances, both administering and withholding ECT can profoundly impact the patient’s fundamental rights. The available evidence shows that patients initially treated against their will exhibit good overall response rates, with equally high retrospective and prospective approval for therapy compared to patients who initially consented to treatment.

Together with the medical ethics considerations the authors conclude that the use of ECT should adhere to the same ethical and normative standards as all other medical interventions. This also applies to cases involving involuntary treatment. Adopting a more restrictive approach to ECT compared to other medical measures is neither medically nor ethically justified. Structural and legal barriers restricting access to necessary treatment for patients with severe and potentially life-threatening conditions should be critically reviewed and, when possible and necessary, removed.