The treatability requirement in psychopathy: a new ethical dilemma?

‘Admit voluntary, schedule if tries to leave’: placing Mental Health Acts in the context of mental health law and human rights

“…Millard argues that making a prognosis in medicine is always uncertain, particularly in some conditions such as psychopathic disorder. 18 He emphasises that an individual’s behaviour is situation-sensitive and that a clinician cannot predict with any accuracy or control the situations in which individuals find themselves. 18 In the UK at least, the government has stated that concerns about risk would take precedence over the treatability criteria in legislation to allow for the involuntary detention of those with ‘dangerous and severe personality disorders’.…”

“…18 He emphasises that an individual’s behaviour is situation-sensitive and that a clinician cannot predict with any accuracy or control the situations in which individuals find themselves. 18 In the UK at least, the government has stated that concerns about risk would take precedence over the treatability criteria in legislation to allow for the involuntary detention of those with ‘dangerous and severe personality disorders’. 19 Nonetheless, it may be difficult to satisfy the treatability principle of mental health law in the absence of an effective treatment (e.g.…”

“…14 In Australia and New Zealand, MHAs do not stipulate that clinicians must consider whether there is a treatment available which is likely to alleviate symptoms of a mental illness or prevent deterioration in a patient. However, this has been the subject of some debate in the UK 14,18 and is a pertinent principle for clinicians to consider. There is a similar dilemma here to assessing risk, as the implication is that the clinician will be able to foresee the outcome of treatment.…”