Article Text
Abstract
Providing for people with psychosocial conditions in crisis is a complex and controversial endeavour that has gained significant attention over the past decade. This increased focus is driven by global calls to reduce coercion, including by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, who interpret Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in General Comment 1 to advocate for the replacement of substituted decision-making with supported decision-making. Psychiatrists occupy a central role in determining how to care for and respond to individuals with psychosocial conditions in crisis in the midst of these debates. They must protect the rights of people with psychosocial conditions in crisis and provide appropriate support within challenging and dynamic contexts. This responsibility includes promoting the autonomy of people with psychosocial condition while ensuring their long-term health, safety and well-being.
In this study, we conducted a phenomenological analysis with a sample of nine psychiatrists in South Africa to explore their experiences with involuntary care and the complex dilemmas they face in delivering healthcare to individuals with mental health conditions. Our findings indicate that psychiatrists encounter significant challenges in preserving patient autonomy, particularly within the resource-limited context of South Africa. Pervasive stigma and insufficient support infrastructure complicate efforts to prioritise autonomy. At the same time, professionals must address the critical need to ensure the long-term safety and well-being of their patients. The absence of involuntary care can exacerbate a person’s vulnerability to community stigma and inadequate community support, posing severe risks to their welfare. Balancing between protecting a person’s autonomy and addressing the limitations of support structures creates a complex predicament for mental health professionals, often resulting in feelings of isolation and moral distress among psychiatrists.
- psychiatry
- psychology
- medical ethics/bioethics
- Health policy
- human rights
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data is confidential and anonymised but can be shared where appropriate to verify voracity of the research.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data is confidential and anonymised but can be shared where appropriate to verify voracity of the research.
Footnotes
Contributors Each of the three authors contributed to producing and analysing the data. All authors contributed to writing up, editing and revising the manuscript for publication. AF acts as guarantor for the work. We used AI minimally to find synonyms or when we could not find the most effective word, but always considered, phrased and reworked AI suggestions around our intended meaning.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.