Dieneke Hubbeling

Crisis resolution and home treatment teams have been introduced into mental health care in the UK because, in general, patients do not want to be admitted to hospital, treatment at home is cheaper and in the only randomized controlled trial conducted so far there was no difference in symptomatic outcome. However, because of compulsory gate-keeping by CRHT teams, some patients no longer have the option of going to hospital if they want to. This aspect of the introduction of CRHT teams has not been discussed so far, but it certainly warrants further examination. Intervention through CRHT teams may in fact increase compulsory admissions and serious and untoward incidents, although this is not certain. Sufferers from psychosis are the patient group most likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital and they are generally considered less responsible for serious and untoward incidents. Therefore, a possible solution could be to offer a choice to some patients, namely those with a psychotic disorder, on whether they want to be admitted or not. At least one should investigate what the consequences of this policy would be, if it were to be adopted in a test region. This example shows that in developing policies for rationing health care, it can be important to look at subgroups and not just at average results when determining the best course of action.

Cartwright and Munro argued that extrapolation of findings from randomized controlled trials to other settings can be difficult because information about the underlying causal structure and subgroups is often not available. They advocated the use of ‘capacities’ – that is fixed causal contributions – in predicting effects of interventions. In psychiatry, it is often not possible to determine what the fixed causal contributions are and one can only establish ‘approximate capacities’. However, using ‘approximate capacities’ does imply a different way of evaluating health services, especially combined interventions. In health service research, if different studies, randomized controlled trials or other designs, have given different outcomes, the best way to investigate the effectiveness of a particular way of service organization is not to conduct more randomized controlled trials. It is preferable to study the effects of certain elements of the complex intervention, which have been tested before in other settings, that is investigating ‘approximate capacities’. One should check whether the separate elements do form a part of the complex intervention in practice and whether they have the same effect as in other studies and if not, why not. This enhances knowledge about the underlying causal structure and increases the possibility of extrapolation of the findings.

This paper addresses the concept of moral luck. Moral luck is discussed in the context of medical error, especially an error of omission that occurs frequently, but only rarely has adverse consequences. As an example, a failure to compare the label on a syringe with the drug chart results in the wrong medication being administered and the patient dies. However, this error may have previously occurred many times with no tragic consequences. Discussions on moral luck can highlight conflicting intuitions. Should perpetrators receive a harsher punishment because of an adverse outcome, or should they be dealt with in the same way as colleagues who have acted similarly, but with no adverse effects? An additional element to the discussion, specifically with medical errors, is that according to the evidence currently available, punishing individual practitioners does not seem to be effective in preventing future errors. The following discussion, using relevant philosophical and empirical evidence, posits a possible solution for the moral luck conundrum in the context of medical error: namely, making a distinction between the duty to make amends and assigning blame. Blame should be assigned on the basis of actual behavior, while the duty to make amends is dependent on the outcome.

Examples of patients with anorexia nervosa, depression or borderline personality disorder who have decision-making capacity as currently operationalized, but refuse treatment, are discussed. It appears counterintuitive to respect their treatment refusal because their wish seems to be fuelled by their illness and the consequences of their refusal of treatment are severe. Some proposed solutions have focused on broadening the criteria for decision-making capacity, either in general or for specific patient groups, but these adjustments might discriminate against particular groups of patients and render the process less transparent. Other solutions focus on preferences expressed when patients are not ill, but this information is often not available. The reason for such difficulties with assessing decision-making capacity is that the underlying psychological processes of normal decision-making are not well known and one cannot differentiate between unwise decisions caused by an illness or other factors. The proposed alternative, set out in this paper, is to allow compulsory treatment of patients with decision-making capacity in cases of an emergency, if the refusal is potentially life threatening, but only for a time-limited period. The argument is also made for investigating hindsight agreement, in particular after compulsory measures.