Cures or Control? The Ethics of Psychiatric Treatment

Photo by Abdiel Ibarra on Unsplash

Understanding ethics in the concept of psychiatric treatment touches on human rights, consent, and the thin line between help and coercion.

The distinction between harm and benefit in the context of mental health care has frequently been blurry and perhaps imperceptible. The main goal of psychiatric treatment is to help people with mental diseases by healing them. However, what occurs if treatment is administered against the patient’s will, such as treatments and torture procedures used in the past, or if it is used as a control mechanism instead of a compassionate one? Are there ethics of psychiatric treatment?

The core of a continuous ethical discussion is this conflict between control and cure. Our discussions around consent, autonomy, and the rights of people in vulnerable mental states must change along with psychiatric care.

A History of Coercion

We must look to the past in order to comprehend the ethics of psychiatric treatment in the present. Historically, mental hospitals, formerly known as asylums, have frequently been the scene of abuse. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, people were committed for reasons more related to social control than illness, such as women who were labeled “hysterical,” political dissidents, or those who were just considered inconvenient. Patients frequently had few legal options, and consent was rarely requested.

Forced lobotomies, isolation in padded rooms, and electroshock therapy without anesthesia were among the cruel and incorrect treatments featuring some of the biggest controversies in psychiatric history. Even though many of these practices are no longer used in modern medicine, the legacy of the history of coercion endures. It serves as a reminder that the question is not just what is being done but also to whom, how, and why.

The Current Reality of Ethics of Psychiatric Treatment

Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash

Patients, doctors, researchers, and the general public are becoming more interested in the possibility of developing new, quick-acting treatments for mental illnesses. Concern over the increasing impact of mental illness on public health, increased societal openness in discussing mental health, the potential for new research to produce theoretical contributions to our understanding of the human brain, and the acknowledged limitations of conventional antidepressant drug treatments (such as therapeutic lag and a high proportion of clinical non-response) all inform this interest. 

However, given the complexity that these novel interventions raise on many levels—not just the psychological and physiological, but also the political, cultural, and historical—enthusiasm must be balanced with caution, even though some have hailed them as the start of a new era in psychiatry (or even of a broader social transformation).

Today’s Picture of Involuntary Treatment

Under some conditions, notably when a person is deemed a danger to herself or others, involuntary mental treatment is still permitted in many nations. These laws are designed to shield people from harm and to safeguard them in times of distress. However, they bring up challenging moral issues.

What happens if someone declines medicine that could help them feel better? When someone is informed they have to choose between treatment and homelessness or treatment and incarceration, can hospitalization ever be genuinely voluntary?

These aren’t hypothetical situations. For many persons with mental illness, receiving care is a form of punishment rather than recovery, which questions the ethics of psychiatric treatment. Instead of providing support, being sedated, shackled, or imprisoned in a facility can feel like incarceration. Involuntary interventions, despite their good intentions, run the risk of eroding public confidence in the mental health system.

Is Consent Still There?

Informed consent is a fundamental principle in medical ethics. However, this norm is contested in mental health treatment. Is it possible for someone experiencing psychosis to genuinely grant or refuse informed consent? What about someone who claims they don’t want help but is suffering from severe depression?

One of the most challenging choices that physicians must make is how to strike a balance between a patient’s right to autonomy and their need for safety. While it is possible to respect someone’s humanity while disagreeing with their evaluation of their requirements, there is a significant risk of overreach in the absence of stringent controls.

According to some critics, forced conformity—pressuring people to conform to social norms of behavior, productivity, or emotion—can be equivalent to involuntary treatment. In this context, psychiatric care is no longer a cure for suffering but rather a means of marginalizing people who don’t fit the mold.

Fundamental Principles of Psychiatric Care

Photo by Malicki M Beser on Unsplash

Psychologists take care to do no damage and aim to benefit the individuals they work with because of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. In their professional activities, psychologists work to protect the rights and well-being of their clients because they understand the importance of the ethics of psychiatric treatment.

When a psychologist’s responsibilities or concerns conflict, they try to find a responsible solution that prevents or lessens harm. Psychologists are aware of and cautious about personal, economic, social, organizational, or political variables that could result in the abuse of their authority since their professional and scientific decisions and activities may have an impact on other people’s lives.

Moreover, the goal of psychologists is to advance candor, accuracy, and integrity in psychological research, instruction, and practice. Psychologists do not steal, cheat, commit fraud, subterfuge, or purposefully falsify facts in these activities. Psychologists make an effort to fulfill their commitments and refrain from making foolish or ambiguous ones.

Psychologists have a significant duty to think about the necessity of, potential repercussions of, and their responsibility to address any resulting mistrust or other negative effects that arise from the use of such techniques in circumstances where lying may be morally acceptable in order to maximize benefits and minimize harm.

Alternatives and Ethical Innovation

Thankfully, alternatives to coerced care are emerging. Community-based assistance, trauma-informed care approaches, and peer-run crisis centers place a high value on shared decision-making and voluntary participation. These methods acknowledge that being heard and believed, rather than merely given medication, is frequently the first step toward recovery.

One such example is the Open Dialogue paradigm, which was created in Finland. When feasible, it avoids hospitalization by bringing patients, families, and professionals together to explore treatment options cooperatively. Preliminary findings indicate potential for lowering relapse and raising patient satisfaction.

Similarly, psychiatric advance directives, which are legal agreements that enable individuals to express their treatment preferences beforehand, provide a means of maintaining autonomy even during emergencies to maintain the ethics of psychiatric treatment.

Human Rights in Mental Health

The United Nations has adopted a strong position on this matter on a global scale. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) emphasizes everyone’s right to make their own healthcare decisions and advocates for a move away from involuntary psychiatric interventions.

Citing the psychological trauma that coercive tactics in mental health care frequently cause, the World Health Organization called on governments to stop them in its 2022 advice. Rather, it supports rights-based strategies that foster long-term healing, agency, and dignity.

Final Thoughts: Handling the Uncertain Situations

It is impossible to categorize the ethics of psychiatric treatment in black and white. Sometimes, immediate action is required because failure to respond could result in fatalities. However, such choices need to be made with accountability, humility, and openness.

In the end, we need to consider whether this treatment is empowering or silencing the patient. Is it a means of control or a route to recovery?

Our dedication to providing ethical care must grow along with our understanding of mental health. That means designing systems that listen more than they force, that seek consent rather than compliance, and that treat people not as problems to be fixed, but as humans deserving respect. To ensure that we do not devolve to the horrendous treatments done in the past, we must remember those stories. Read Asylum Scandals: Abuse, Torture, Corruption and Murder in Minnesota’s State Hospitals now!