Prison medicine: ethics and equivalence

Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychiatry, University of Southampton, Ravenswood House, Knowle, Fareham, Hampshire PO17 5NA, UK.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 7.34). 02/2006; 188:4-6. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010488
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Guidelines for good medical practice do not reflect the complex reality of the ethical problems that arise in prison. Perhaps the best a doctor working in prison can do is realise that there are ethical dilemmas everywhere, try to recognise them and feel the tension.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ensuring confidentiality is the cornerstone of trust within the doctor-patient relationship. However, health care providers have an obligation to serve not only their patient's interests but also those of potential victims and society, resulting in circumstances where confidentiality must be breached. This article describes the attitudes of mental health professionals (MHPs) when patients disclose past crimes unknown to the justice system. Twenty-four MHPs working in Swiss prisons were interviewed. They shared their experiences concerning confidentiality practices and attitudes towards breaching confidentiality in prison. Qualitative analysis revealed that MHPs study different factors before deciding whether a past crime should be disclosed, including: (1) the type of therapy the prisoner-patient was seeking (i.e., whether it was court-ordered or voluntary), (2) the type of crime that is revealed (e.g., a serious crime, a crime of a similar nature to the original crime, or a minor crime), and (3) the danger posed by the prisoner-patient. Based on this study's findings, risk assessment of dangerousness was one of the most important factors determining disclosures of past crimes, taking into consideration both the type of therapy and the crime involved. Attitudes of MHPs varied with regard to confidentiality rules and when to breach confidentiality, and there was thus a lack of consensus as to when and whether past crimes should be reported. Hence, legal and ethical requirements concerning confidentiality breaches must be made clear and known to physicians in order to guide them with difficult cases.
    Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 07/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11673-014-9546-z · 0.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article we critically examine the principle of equivalence of care in prison medicine. First, we provide an overview of how the principle of equivalence is utilized in various national and international guidelines on health care provision to prisoners. Second, we outline some of the problems associated with its applications, and argue that the principle of equivalence should go beyond equivalence to access and include equivalence of outcomes. However, because of the particular context of the prison environment, third, we contend that the concept of “health” in equivalence of health outcomes needs conceptual clarity; otherwise, it fails to provide a threshold for healthy states among inmates. We accomplish this by examining common understandings of the concepts of health and disease. We conclude our article by showing why the conceptualization of diseases as clinical problems provides a helpful approach in the delivery of health care in prison.
    The American Journal of Bioethics 07/2014; 14(7). DOI:10.1080/15265161.2014.919365 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Restricting a person's liberty presents society with many inherent ethical challenges. The historical purposes of confinement have included punishment, penitence, containment, rehabilitation, and habilitation. While the purposes are indeed complex, multifaceted, and at times ambiguous or contradictory, the fact of incarceration intrinsically creates many ethical challenges for psychiatrists working in correctional settings. Role definition of a psychiatrist may be ambiguous, with potential tensions between forensic and therapeutic demands. Privacy may be limited or absent and confidentiality may be compromised. Patient autonomy may be threatened to address real or perceived security concerns. Care delivery may actually have harmful consequences in court cases for pretrial detainees or lethal consequences for those under a death sentence. An absence of data and targeted research hampers the development of evidence-based care delivery for the disenfranchised, understudied, and disproportionately ill prisoner population. In this review paper, I discuss a few of the challenges and dilemmas routinely faced and present a series of questions. Where feasible, proposed resolutions are offered.
    Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 07/2014; 11(3). DOI:10.1007/s11673-014-9560-1 · 0.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014