Clinical Ethics

Initiating clinical ethics support in psychiatry (CESiP) and maintaining its continuity appear to be easy. This is contradicted by the observed delay or lack of CESiP, e.g. ethics consultation. On the basis of a published literature search and the discussion of practical experiences over 2.5 years 10 tasks and relating challenges of initiating and maintaining CESiP are formulated and illustrated by examples. Referral to experiences is grounded on the systematic documentation of ca. 100 CESiP activities. The tasks and challenges illustrate how CESiP was initiated and maintained in child and adolescent, adult and forensic psychiatry. Each example is followed by a “rule of thumb” that was found useful in our centre. Discussion: Suggestions I–III are of organisational nature, IV–X have explicit ethical content concerning the ethos or professionalism of the ethics consultant and CES practice. Their realisation requires a minimum of stability of CESiP and considerable consultancy experience.

The design and implementation of clinical ethics support is attracting increasing attention. Often, the characteristics and aims of clinical ethics support are translated into practice in a top-down, programmatic manner. These characteristics and aims then remain a constant feature of the clinical ethics support functions within the organisation. We argue that the characteristics of clinical ethics support should be reflected in the implementation strategy. Inspired by dialogical, pragmatic and hermeneutic perspectives on clinical ethics support in general and moral case deliberation in particular, we argue for a dialogical approach to implementing clinical ethics support, based on open, ongoing discussion with healthcare professionals about how they conceive (the aims of) clinical ethics support. Based on research and experience with various moral case deliberation implementation projects in mental healthcare, we present a theoretical framework for dialogical implementation and heuristic guidelines for implementing moral case deliberation in mental healthcare, which take into account the dialogical characteristics of moral case deliberation and some specific features of mental healthcare.

Forensic psychiatry is pervaded by moral dilemmas. Although professionals in forensic psychiatry are trained in law and psychiatry and are certainly aware of ethical issues in the care for patients, they tend to make decisions in an implicit way and not to discuss their moral concerns or doubts. More structural attention for ethics seems to be required. In this paper, we show the value of moral case deliberation in forensic psychiatry. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of clinical ethics support in which healthcare professionals discuss a moral issue from practice in a structured way, facilitated by an ethicist or specifically trained facilitator. It is applicable to a wide array of situations in healthcare practice. In contrast to other models of clinical ethics support, such as individual consultation, the focus is on the moral experience of professionals and using a structured method to foster dialog and joint moral learning. In this paper, an example of case on a forensic ward is presented. The case shows that moral case deliberation leads to reflection on values and stimulates openness and honesty regarding uncertainties. Moreover, the deliberation provides room for new insights and creates a basis for a joint decision on how to proceed further, recognizing the tensions and difficulties involved.

In a clinic-wide approach to establish liberal policies, a closed psychiatric ward was planned to be opened. The leaders of the multi-professional team of this ward requested continuous ethics support during the first few months after the transition from their previously closed ward into an open one. During the process of accompanying the team through this ethically sensitive period of institutional change, several variations of ethics consultation were developed: the ‘context-adjusted’ clinical ethics support. Some ethics consultations focused on a retrospective evaluation of a patient case, in other ethics consultations consolidation of a previous case discussion was worked out, and/or reflections on fundamental ethical issues were included. Based on our experiences and the feedback of the team, we consider this context-adjusted clinical ethics support as feasible and effective.

In spite of an intensive discussion of ethical subjects, psychiatric departments rarely request clinical ethics support. However, during regular psychological supervisions subjects with an underlying ethical conflict are increasingly encountered. Based on the case study of a 39-year-old female patient suffering from personality disorder and her newborn child, the role of ethical consultation in psychiatric treatment and the decision making regarding health and welfare of child and mother will be presented. While discussing opportunities and limitations of psychological supervision as a possible vehicle for clinical ethics support, it becomes obvious that during psychological supervision, ethical conflicts can also be reflected and treatment alternatives be evaluated. Psychological supervision finds its limits because of its more intuitive processes when the conflict escalates, when the patient cannot be involved and when institutional interests dominate. In these cases, the more structured and formalised process of clinical ethics consultation clearly offers advantages.