Topic 2: Clinical Criteria for Determining Danger to Self
A 45-year-old wife of one of the staff physicians was admitted to the emergency room. She is intoxicated and loud. Her husband wants her admitted to the psychiatric unit. He has asked to have two other physicians that are his friends to sign the paper work to admit her. In New York State where the hospital is located two physicians can admit a patient against their will if they are a danger to themselves or others. You happen to be a neighbor and know that the couple is going through a divorce and the husband wants custody of the two children. You also know he is dating a nurse on another unit. Differentiate between the ethical and legal implications of her admission. What actions will you take? Support your decisions with legal reasoning and case law.
At least 250 words with 2 references/citations
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
This case study presents a situation in which a woman is brought to the emergency room and her husband, who is a staff physician, wants her to be admitted to the psychiatric unit. However, he is involving his friends, who are also physicians, to sign the paperwork for her involuntary admission, citing the state law that allows this if the patient is a danger to themselves or others. There are also personal and ethical issues involved in this case, such as the couple’s divorce and the husband’s personal interests. This essay will differentiate between the ethical and legal implications of her admission, and suggest actions that can be taken based on legal reasoning and case law.
Answer:
In this case, the legal implications have to be taken into account first. New York state law allows for the involuntary admission of patients to a psychiatric unit if they are a danger to themselves or others. However, two physicians need to sign the paperwork for this to happen. In this case, since the wife is intoxicated and loud, her husband may feel that she is a danger to herself and therefore wants her to be admitted. However, the involvement of the husband’s friends, who are also physicians, may be considered unethical and create doubts about why they are signing the paperwork. This can raise questions about the validity and reliability of the admission, and the motives of those involved.
Furthermore, it is essential to consider the personal and ethical implications of this case. The couple is going through a divorce, and the husband’s actions may be driven by a desire to gain custody of their two children. Additionally, he is involved with a nurse from another unit, which presents an ethical question of whether personal relationships and favoritism are involved in this admission.
In light of these implications, the most appropriate action would be to involve a neutral third party who can evaluate the woman’s condition and determine whether she is indeed a danger to herself. This person could be an independent physician, a mental health professional, or a social worker. This would mitigate the potential bias and personal interest involved in the current situation.
In summary, based on the legal and ethical implications of this case, a neutral third party should be involved to evaluate the woman’s condition to determine if involuntary admission is necessary. This approach would be fair, unbiased and ethically appropriate. Adhering to these principles would ensure that the woman receives the appropriate care she requires.
