One of the most controversial topics in the field of clinical psychology is the issue of whether or not treatment should be allowed to those who are unable to provide informed consent. Informed consent is a process of getting permission before intervention in a person’s healthcare. Informed consent involves two requirements: the patient must be knowledgeable of what the treatment entails as well as the identity and credentials of the caretaker, and they must agree to participate (Morgan, 2014). The patient must have the capacity to make an informed decision based on the information presented to them by a professional (Krüger & Van Staden, 2003). This is an issue for individuals who are unable to give informed consent such as children, the incarcerated,
…show more content…
This approach focuses on the use of education and non-punitive treatments to provide long-term care for patients. Professionals with this viewpoint believe it is unnecessary and unethical to use punishment in treatment measures, and therefore, rely on functional analysis of patients’ behaviour (Feldman, 1990, p. 263). This method is more humane and socially favourable in the notion that it is non-intrusive and no physical harm is done to the patient. Here, the patient has the opportunity to actively participate in learning to adapt their behaviour to standards considered acceptable in society. In this context, the wishes and desires of the patient are respected and taken into account in addition to the treatments they need. However, even one of the major issues with this approach is that it is really only effective in patients with mild behavioural issues. An even greater issue is that some individuals are so cognitively impaired that they may not respond to non-punitive methods at all. Studies have proven negative reinforcement in combination with non-punitive methods as the best technique to treat severe behavioural problems (Feldman, 1990, p. 262). There are also a few unethical aspects to the freedom from harm approach. Firstly, most of their procedures involve keeping patients in isolated and restrictive environments, which can be emotionally damaging when being kept away from the presence of your loved ones for so long. Secondly, since this approach bans the use of punishment, there is an increased risk of unrecognized use of intrusive procedures. These professionals may label treatments such as contingent restraint and social isolation under inconspicuous names such as ‘crisis intervention’ and ‘relaxation room’ (Feldman, 1990, p. 263). In this way, the freedom from harm approach promises non-intrusive care for the well-being of the patient, but may not always be
This approach focuses on the use of education and non-punitive treatments to provide long-term care for patients. Professionals with this viewpoint believe it is unnecessary and unethical to use punishment in treatment measures, and therefore, rely on functional analysis of patients’ behaviour (Feldman, 1990, p. 263). This method is more humane and socially favourable in the notion that it is non-intrusive and no physical harm is done to the patient. Here, the patient has the opportunity to actively participate in learning to adapt their behaviour to standards considered acceptable in society. In this context, the wishes and desires of the patient are respected and taken into account in addition to the treatments they need. However, even one of the major issues with this approach is that it is really only effective in patients with mild behavioural issues. An even greater issue is that some individuals are so cognitively impaired that they may not respond to non-punitive methods at all. Studies have proven negative reinforcement in combination with non-punitive methods as the best technique to treat severe behavioural problems (Feldman, 1990, p. 262). There are also a few unethical aspects to the freedom from harm approach. Firstly, most of their procedures involve keeping patients in isolated and restrictive environments, which can be emotionally damaging when being kept away from the presence of your loved ones for so long. Secondly, since this approach bans the use of punishment, there is an increased risk of unrecognized use of intrusive procedures. These professionals may label treatments such as contingent restraint and social isolation under inconspicuous names such as ‘crisis intervention’ and ‘relaxation room’ (Feldman, 1990, p. 263). In this way, the freedom from harm approach promises non-intrusive care for the well-being of the patient, but may not always be