We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article presents a framework to assist with the making of often challenging decisions about engagement and disengagement with patients across mental health services. The framework is based on Beauchamp & Childress’s four principles of clinical ethics. We pose practical questions, illustrated by a clinical vignette, around these four principles in order to aid implementation of ethics-based decision-making. The framework is useful in both complex and seemingly straightforward issues. It can be used as a means of communicating what are often controversial decisions to fellow clinicians and patients.
Central and North West London's Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) offers a non-judgmental space to discuss ethical concerns and challenges and provide ethical guidance. This project aims to publicise these ethical dilemmas and guidance to inform decision making trust-wide.
Background
A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) encompasses a diverse range of figures, from psychiatrists and general practitioners to members of the clergy and experts by experience. The CEC in Central and North West London have been meeting regularly since 2003 to provide ethical assistance to a wide range of medical, surgical and psychiatric teams. Complex ethical cases are presented by the treating team, allowing a subsequent discussion of the ethical theories and frameworks within the case with the committee members. This synthesis of information can then assist the treating team in the shaping of ethical based solutions to their dilemmas.
The committee wished to encourage ethical based clinical thinking within the trust and enable others to learn from the valuable insights already provided by the CEC over the years.
Method
Case notes, recorded from the last 17 years of meetings of the Clinical Ethics Committee were reviewed. 98 cases were identified between 2003-2019. The contemporaneous case reports were then anonymised and indexed into one easy to use file. This file was published on the local intranet and publicised to staff.
Result
The cases were compiled into a PDF document which is available for all staff members within the trust on the intranet. This resource is open to all clinical staff, and serves the dual purpose of encouraging ethical-based thinking and also promoting the ethics committee to those who might be in need of assistance.
Conclusion
Clinical decisions can be complex and nuanced, often complicated by multiple viewpoints and ways of thinking. The database demonstrates the use of ethical dimensions by the ethics committee to inform decision making in a series of varied clinical and management dilemmas. The project required careful consideration around preservation of confidentiality as well as overcoming the logistical barriers of trust-wide dissemination. The result is a document that will allow ethical based decision-making to be embedded into everyday practice.
A series of editorials in this Journal have argued that psychiatry is in the midst of a crisis. The various solutions proposed would all involve a strengthening of psychiatry's identity as essentially ‘applied neuroscience’. Although not discounting the importance of the brain sciences and psychopharmacology, we argue that psychiatry needs to move beyond the dominance of the current, technological paradigm. This would be more in keeping with the evidence about how positive outcomes are achieved and could also serve to foster more meaningful collaboration with the growing service user movement.