Under which conditions are changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment justified during the COVID-19 pandemic? An ethical evaluation of current developments in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses significant challenges in psychiatric hospitals, particularly in the context of the treatment of people under involuntary commitment. The question arises at various points in the procedure for and process of involuntary commitment whether procedural modifications or further restrictive measures are necessary to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and protect all people involved from infection. In the light of current developments in Germany, this article examines under which conditions changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment are ethically justified in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among others, we discuss ethical arguments for and against involuntary commitments with reference to COVID-19, the use of different coercive interventions, the introduction of video hearings, an increased use of video surveillance and interventions based on the German Infection Protection Act. We argue that strict hygiene concepts, the provision of sufficient personal protective equipment and frequent testing for COVID-19 should be the central strategies to ensure the best possible protection against infection. Any further restrictions of the liberty of people under involuntary commitment require a sound ethical justification based on the criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality. A strict compliance with these criteria and the continued oversight by external and independent control mechanisms are important to prevent ethically unjustified restrictions and discrimination against people with the diagnosis of a mental disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Socio-economic impact on involuntary admissions and coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to characterize involuntary psychiatric admissions and coercive measures within psychiatric hospitals regarding their temporal development and processual aspects. Moreover, the influence of socio-economic factors on involuntary admissions and coercive measures was investigated. METHODS: Different data sets from the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) were used in this study. In addition to a survey in which n = 33 hospitals responded (40.7%), official data from the Federal Health Ministry were analysed over a decade regarding involuntary admissions and coercive measures. These data were available for all n = 54 districts, respectively, all n = 81 psychiatric hospitals in NRW. Datasets were mainly analysed comparing different socio-economic clusters. RESULTS: The hospital admission rate increased significantly over time (from 1.12 to 1.34 per 1000 inhabitants) within ten years. However, whereas the admission rates differed significantly between socio-economic clusters, the amount of coercive measures used in the hospitals did not. Compared to general psychiatry and addiction medicine, geriatric psychiatry had the highest amount of involuntary admissions (12.2% under public law, 14.1% under civil law). Furthermore, most coercive measures lasted at least an hour. CONCLUSION: It seems that, despite intense discussions and enhanced efforts to reduce coercion, there are still some neglected aspects, such as the need for coercive measures and their duration, particularly in the geriatric psychiatric setting. In addition, the results show that further approaches to prevent involuntary admissions are needed to address other stakeholders beyond the hospitals and further aspects of the socio-economic environment.