Explore the vast range of titles available.

All human behaviour is, ultimately, a moral undertaking, in which each situation must be considered on its own merits. As a result ethical conduct is complex. Despite the proliferation of Codes of Conduct and other forms of professional guidance, there are no easy answers to most human problems. Mental Health Ethics encourages readers to heighten their awareness of the key ethical dilemmas found in mainstream contemporary mental health practice. This text provides an overview of traditional and contemporary ethical perspectives and critically examines a range of ethical and moral challenges present in contemporary ‘psychiatric-mental’ health services. Offering a comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective, it includes six parts, each with their own introduction, summary and set of ethical challenges, covering: fundamental ethical principles; legal issues; specific challenges for different professional groups; working with different service user groups; models of care and treatment; recovery and human rights perspectives. Providing detailed consideration of issues and dilemmas, Mental Health Ethics helps all mental health professionals keep people at the centre of the services they offer. Section 1: Ethics and Mental Health 1. Ethics: In Search of the Good Life Phil Barker 2. The Keystone of Psychiatric Ethics Phil Barker 3. Who Cares Any More, Anyway? Phil Barker Section 2: The Professional Context 4. The Psychiatrist Duncan Double 5. The Mental Health Nurse Tony Warne, Sue McAndrew and Dawn Gawthorpe 6. The Social Worker Shula Ramon 7. The Clinical Psychologist Lucy Johnstone 8. The Therapist Phil Barker 9. The Occupational Therapist Lesley Brady 10. The Chaplain Kevin Franz Section 3: Care and Treatment 11. Psychiatric Diagnosis Phil Barker 12. Professional Relationships Vince Mitchell 13. Restraint Brodie Patterson 14. ECT and Consent Phil Barker 15. Medication Austyn Snowden Section 4: The Human Context 16. Acute care Jan Horsfall, Michelle Cleary, Glenn E Hunt and Garry Walter 17. Forensic Care Tom Mason 18. Addictions Jeffrey Schaler 19. Younger people in mental health care Tim McDougall 20. Older people in mental health care Elizabeth Collier and Natali Yates-Bolton 21. Race and culture Suman Fernando 22. Suicide John Cutcliffe and Paul Links Section 5: Legal Issues 23. Mental Health Law in England and Wales Tony Warne and Sue McAndrew 24. Mental Health Law in Ireland Denis Ryan and Agnes Higgins 25. Mental Health Law in Scotland Robert Davidson 26. Advance Directives Jacqueline Atkinson 27. The Insanity Defence and Diminished Responsibility Tom Mason Section 6: Ideologal Issues 28. Talk about Recovery Poppy Buchanan-Barker 29. Illusion, Individuality and Autonomy Craig Newnes 30. Ethics - The Elephant in the Room Phil Barker Phil Barker is a psychotherapist in private practice and a Director of Clan Unity International, a mental health recovery consultancy. He is also Honorary Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Dundee, UK. ‘I was personally fairly familiar with and committed to the underlying thesis and found much that resonated with my values. That is, the essence of ethical practice is a lot about values, but values demonstrated rather than merely espoused. After reading this text, I felt better able to articulate the issues and found myself recommending it (or particular chapters) to students. It deserves a wide readership, as it will surely assist people to develop ethical sensitivity and importantly to ponder the important questions that confront anyone working within mental health services.’ – Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 'Well written, accessible and thought provoking...if you are undertaking any study that stimulates discussion around the working practices of your profession, a great deal of what it contains will be relevant despite the mental health emphasis.' – MIDIRS 'Represents a considerable addition to the literature in this field.' – Nursing Ethics

This book explores the moral lives of mental health clinicians serving the most marginalized individuals in the US healthcare system. Drawing on years of fieldwork in a community psychiatry outreach team, Brodwin traces the ethical dilemmas and everyday struggles of front line providers. On the street, in staff room debates, or in private confessions, these psychiatrists and social workers confront ongoing challenges to their self-image as competent and compassionate advocates. At times they openly question the coercion and forced-dependency built into the current system of care. At other times they justify their use of extreme power in the face of loud opposition from clients. This in-depth study exposes the fault lines in today's community psychiatry. It shows how people working deep inside the system struggle to maintain their ideals and manage a chronic sense of futility. Their commentaries about the obligatory and the forbidden also suggest ways to bridge formal bioethics and the realities of mental health practice. The experiences of these clinicians pose a single overarching question: how should we bear responsibility for the most vulnerable among us?

Autism is one of the most compelling, controversial, and heartbreaking cognitive disorders. It presents unique philosophical challenges as well, raising intriguing questions in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and philosophy of language that need to be explored if the autistic population is to be responsibly served. Starting from the theory of mind thesis that a fundamental deficit in autism is the inability to recognize that other persons have minds, Deborah R. Barnbaum considers its implications for the nature of consciousness, our understanding of the consciousness of others, meaning theories in philosophy of language, and the modality of mind. This discussion lays the groundwork for consideration of the value of an autistic life, as well as the moral theories available to persons with autism. The book also explores questions about genetic decision making, research into the nature of autism, and the controversial quest for a cure. This is a timely and wide-ranging book on a disorder that commends itself to serious ethical examination.

To examine the extent and nature of coercive practices in mental healthcare and to consider the ethical, human rights challenges facing the current clinical practices in this area. We consider the epidemiology of coercion in mental health and appraise the efficacy of attempts to reduce coercion and make specific recommendations for making mental healthcare less coercive and more consensual. We identified references through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to May 2018. Searches were carried out using the terms mental health (admission or detain* or detention or coercion) and treatment (forcible or involuntary or seclusion or restraint). Articles published during this period were further identified through searches in the authors' personal files and Google Scholar. Articles resulting from searches and relevant references cited in those articles were reviewed. Articles and reviews of non-psychiatric population, children under 16 years, and those pertaining exclusively to people with dementia were excluded. Coercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare. There is very little research in this area and the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research as well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem. Examples of good practice in this area are limited and there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes. Based on the review, we make specific recommendations to reduce coercive care. Our contention is that this will require more than legislative tinkering and will necessitate a fundamental change in the culture of psychiatry. In particular, we must ensure that clinical practice never compromises people's human rights. It is ethically, clinically and legally necessary to address the problem of coercion and make mental healthcare more consensual. All forms of coercive practices are inconsistent with human rights-based mental healthcare. This is global challenge that requires urgent action.

Digital mental health interventions are routinely integrated into mental health services internationally and can contribute to reducing the global mental health treatment gap identified by the World Health Organization. Research teams designing and delivering evaluations frequently invest substantial effort in deliberating on ethical and legal challenges around digital mental health interventions. In this article, we reflect on our own research experience with digital mental health intervention design and evaluation to identify 8 of the most critical challenges that we or others have faced, and that have ethical or legal consequences. These include: (1) harm caused by online recruitment work; (2) monitoring of intervention safety; (3) exclusion of specific demographic or clinical groups; (4) inadequate robustness of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness findings; (5) adequately conceptualizing and supporting engagement and adherence; (6) structural barriers to implementation; (7) data protection and intellectual property; and (8) regulatory ambiguity relating to digital mental health interventions that are medical devices. As we describe these challenges, we have highlighted serious consequences that can or have occurred, such as substantial delays to studies if regulations around Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) are not fully understood, or if regulations change substantially during the study lifecycle. Collectively, the challenges we have identified highlight a substantial body of required knowledge and expertise, either within the team or through access to external experts. Ensuring access to knowledge requires careful planning and adequate financial resources (for example, paying public contributors to engage in debate on critical ethical issues or paying for legal opinions on regulatory issues). Access to such resources can be planned for on a per-study basis and enabled through funding proposals. However, organizations regularly engaged in the development and evaluation of digital mental health interventions should consider creating or supporting structures such as advisory groups that can retain necessary competencies, such as in medical device regulation.

In mental health ethics, it is generally assumed that coercive measures are sometimes justified when persons with mental illness endanger themselves or others. Coercive measures are regarded as ethically justified only when certain criteria are fulfilled: for example, the intervention must be proportional in relation to the potential harm. In this paper, we demonstrate shortcomings of this established ethical framework in cases where people with mental illness experience structural racism. By drawing on a case example from mental healthcare, we first demonstrate that biases in assessing whether the coercive intervention is proportional are likely, for example, due to an overestimation of dangerousness. We then show that even if proportionality is assessed correctly, and the specific coercive intervention would thus be regarded as ethically justified according to the standard framework, coercion may still be ethically problematic. This is because the standard framework does not consider how situations in which coercive measures are applied arise. If structural racism causally contributes to such situations, the use of coercion can compound the prior injustice of racist discrimination. We conclude that the ethical analysis of coercion in mental healthcare should consider the possibility of discriminatory biases and practices and systematically take the influence of structural discrimination into account.

Conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) is emerging as a promising digital technology for mental health care. CAI apps, such as psychotherapeutic chatbots, are available in app stores, but their use raises ethical concerns. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of ethical considerations surrounding CAI as a therapist for individuals with mental health issues. We conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, the Philosopher's Index, and ACM Digital Library databases. Our search comprised 3 elements: embodied artificial intelligence, ethics, and mental health. We defined CAI as a conversational agent that interacts with a person and uses artificial intelligence to formulate output. We included articles discussing the ethical challenges of CAI functioning in the role of a therapist for individuals with mental health issues. We added additional articles through snowball searching. We included articles in English or Dutch. All types of articles were considered except abstracts of symposia. Screening for eligibility was done by 2 independent researchers (MRM and TS or AvB). An initial charting form was created based on the expected considerations and revised and complemented during the charting process. The ethical challenges were divided into themes. When a concern occurred in more than 2 articles, we identified it as a distinct theme. We included 101 articles, of which 95% (n=96) were published in 2018 or later. Most were reviews (n=22, 21.8%) followed by commentaries (n=17, 16.8%). The following 10 themes were distinguished: (1) safety and harm (discussed in 52/101, 51.5% of articles); the most common topics within this theme were suicidality and crisis management, harmful or wrong suggestions, and the risk of dependency on CAI; (2) explicability, transparency, and trust (n=26, 25.7%), including topics such as the effects of \"black box\" algorithms on trust; (3) responsibility and accountability (n=31, 30.7%); (4) empathy and humanness (n=29, 28.7%); (5) justice (n=41, 40.6%), including themes such as health inequalities due to differences in digital literacy; (6) anthropomorphization and deception (n=24, 23.8%); (7) autonomy (n=12, 11.9%); (8) effectiveness (n=38, 37.6%); (9) privacy and confidentiality (n=62, 61.4%); and (10) concerns for health care workers' jobs (n=16, 15.8%). Other themes were discussed in 9.9% (n=10) of the identified articles. Our scoping review has comprehensively covered ethical aspects of CAI in mental health care. While certain themes remain underexplored and stakeholders' perspectives are insufficiently represented, this study highlights critical areas for further research. These include evaluating the risks and benefits of CAI in comparison to human therapists, determining its appropriate roles in therapeutic contexts and its impact on care access, and addressing accountability. Addressing these gaps can inform normative analysis and guide the development of ethical guidelines for responsible CAI use in mental health care.

This article contends that the responsible artificial intelligence (AI) approach—which is the dominant ethics approach ruling most regulatory and ethical guidance—falls short because it overlooks the impact of AI on human relationships. Focusing only on responsible AI principles reinforces a narrow concept of accountability and responsibility of companies developing AI. This article proposes that applying the ethics of care approach to AI regulation can offer a more comprehensive regulatory and ethical framework that addresses AI’s impact on human relationships. This dual approach is essential for the effective regulation of AI in the domain of mental health care. The article delves into the emergence of the new “therapeutic” area facilitated by AI-based bots, which operate without a therapist. The article highlights the difficulties involved, mainly the absence of a defined duty of care toward users, and shows how implementing ethics of care can establish clear responsibilities for developers. It also sheds light on the potential for emotional manipulation and the risks involved. In conclusion, the article proposes a series of considerations grounded in the ethics of care for the developmental process of AI-powered therapeutic tools.

COVID-19 presents new challenges for psychiatry as clinical management, ethical dilemmas and administrative complications need to be addressed. The psychiatrist should protect the needs and rights of the mentally ill while maximising population health and ensuring solidarity, reciprocity and community well-being for all.

Given the scarcity of specialist mental healthcare in India, diverse community mental healthcare models have evolved. This study explores and compares Indian models of mental healthcare delivered by primary-level workers (PHW), and health workers' roles within these. We aim to describe current service delivery to identify feasible and acceptable models with potential for scaling up. Seventy two programmes (governmental and non-governmental) across 12 states were visited. 246 PHWs, coordinators, leaders, specialists and other staff were interviewed to understand the programme structure, the model of mental health delivery and health workers' roles. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Programmes were categorised using an existing framework of collaborative and non-collaborative models of primary mental healthcare. A new model was identified: the specialist community model, whereby PHWs are trained within specialist programmes to provide community support and treatment for those with severe mental disorders. Most collaborative and specialist community models used lay health workers rather than doctors. Both these models used care managers. PHWs and care managers received support often through multiple specialist and non-specialist organisations from voluntary and government sectors. Many projects still use a simple yet ineffective model of training without supervision (training and identification/referral models). Indian models differ significantly to those in high-income countries-there are less professional PHWs used across all models. There is also intensive specialist involvement particularly in the community outreach and collaborative care models. Excessive reliance on specialists inhibits their scalability, though they may be useful in targeted interventions for severe mental disorders. We propose a revised framework of models based on our findings. The current priorities are to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and scalability of these models in resource-limited settings both in India and in other low- and middle- income countries.