Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T01:27:36.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Attitudes of mental health professionals and lay-people towards involuntary admission and treatment in England and Germany—a questionnaire analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

Peter Lepping*
Affiliation:
Cheshire and Wirral Partnership Trust, Cherrybank Resource Centre, 85, Wellington Road, Ellesmere Port, CH65 0BY, UK
Tilman Steinert
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Ulm, Zentrum für Psychiatrie “Die Weissenau”, Weingartshoferstrasse 2, 88214 Ravensburg, Germany
Ralf-Peter Gebhardt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Ulm, Zentrum für Psychiatrie “Die Weissenau”, Weingartshoferstrasse 2, 88214 Ravensburg, Germany
Hanns Rüdiger Röttgers
Affiliation:
Public Health Authority, Vechta County, Neuer Markt 8, 49377 Vechta, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail address: lepping@onetel.net.uk (P. Lepping).
Get access

Abstract

Objectives

To identify attitudes about involuntary admission and treatment in mental health professionals and lay-people and to compare results between England and Germany.

Method

Three scenarios of potentially detainable patients were presented to identify attitudes. A questionnaire asked about attitudes towards involuntary admission as well as treatment. A questionnaire analysis was then performed.

Results

There were similar attitudes towards involuntary admission and treatment between lay-people and mental health professionals with the exception of professionals not actively involved in the detention process. The different legal frameworks between Germany and England did not influence attitudes much. Support for involuntary admission and treatment broadly increased with age.

Conclusions

Psychiatrists and other mental health workers are in tune with society with regards to attitudes towards involuntary admission. People involved with mentally ill patients but not in the detention process have negative attitudes towards involuntary admission.

Type
Original article
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 European Psychiatric Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Council Report 83. Good psychiatric practice. Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2000.Google Scholar
Der Spiegel. Magazine 2001;13/26.03:54–7.Google Scholar
Helmchen, HDie Deklaration von Madrid 1996 (World Psychiatric Association: The Madrid declaration 1996). Nervenarzt 1998;69:454–5.Google Scholar
Lidz, CWHoge, SKGardner, Wet al.Perceived coercion in mental hospital admissions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:1034–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röttgers, HRLepping, PZwangsunterbringung und -behandlung psy-chisch Kranker in Großbritannien und Deutschland (Involuntary admission and treatment of the mentally ill in Great Britain and Germany). Psychiat Prax 1999;26:139–42.Google Scholar
Röttgers, HRLepping, PTreatment of the mentally ill in the Federal Republic of Germany. Psychiatr Bull 1999;23(10):601–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolf, GAERöttgers, HRRechtsfragen in Psychiatrie und Neurology.2 Auflage (Law issues in psychiatry and neurology). 2nd ed.Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag; 2000.Google Scholar
Sanguineti, VRSamuel, SESchwartz, SLRetrospective study of 2200 involuntary psychiatric admissions and readmissions. Am J Psychiatry 1996;153:392–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Steinert, THinüber, WArenz, DRöttgers, HRBiller, NGebhardt, RPEthische Konflikte bei der Zwangsbehandlung schizophrener Patienten (Ethical conflicts in the involuntary treatment of schizophrenic patients). Nervenarzt 2001;72:700–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.