CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care

Szmukler, George, Appelbaum, Paul S.·2008·Journal of Mental Health
DOI 10.1080/09638230802052203
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Questions concerning non-consensual treatment in mental health services have assumed an increased salience. In significant part, this has been due to changes in professional practice, as well as the perceived risks, associated with the movement of treatment from hospital to community.Aims: To define the main forms of pressure aimed at inducing reluctant patients to accept treatment and to examine frameworks for their justification.Method: Review of the literature on “coercion” focusing on morally relevant distinctions between its different forms.Findings: A hierarchy of treatment pressures can be defined based on distinctions having moral relevance. These range from persuasion, through interpersonal leverage, inducements (offers), threats, to the use of compulsion. Contemporary ideas about “coercion” suggest that the use of this term should be reserved for particular types of threat. The relationships to coercion of “unwelcome predictions”, “exploitation” and “deception” can be defined.Conclusions: As one ascends the hierarchy, the stronger must be the justification for intervention by the clinician. Two frameworks can prove helpful in decision-making, one based on a “capacity-best interests” approach, the other on an analysis of “paternalism”. Interventions for the protection of others rather than in the health interests of the patient may present special difficulties in their justification.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638230802052203

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cohen I. G, 2003, Harvard Law Review, 117, 698
  2. Culver C. M., 1982, Philosophy in medicine: Conceptual and ethical issues
  3. Nozick R, 1997, Socratic puzzles
  4. Wertheimer A, 1987, Coercion

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 304

Related

Metadata

Authors
Szmukler, G., & Appelbaum, P. S.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Szmukler, George
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-01
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
233-244
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
DOI
10.1080/09638230802052203
OpenAlex
W2073765189
Cited by
304
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
coercion in mental health care, treatment pressure, compulsive behavior, persuasion, threats, inducement, exploitation, deception, paternalism, best interests, capacity, community mental health services, involuntary treatment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review