UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 25.2 Free with a free account
Ethical Dilemmas in Practice: Informed Consent, Confidentiality, and Equity of Access
Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 25: Legal Frameworks and Ethical Considerations in Mental HealthSection 25.2 · lesson 96 of 9716 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Abnormal Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Abnormal Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Advancing Mental Health Globally: International Initiatives and Progress →← Psychological Evaluations in Legal Settings and Mental Health Law: Institutionalization and Duty to ProtectNext lesson: Advancing Mental Health Globally: International Initiatives and Progress →
In this lesson
Where ethics meets law - and where access becomes a justice question.
- Describe capacity and informed consent in law and in practice
- Describe the legal dimensions of confidentiality, and when disclosure is permitted or required
- Analyze equity of access as an ethical problem, not only a resource one
- Evaluate allocation criteria and the case for explicit rationing
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (2,160 words). Read along, or search it.
Legal Frameworks and Ethical Considerations in Mental Health
Consent, Confidentiality, and Equity of Access
This section turns to the ethical dilemmas that arise in everyday practice. It describes capacity and informed consent, as they operate in law and in practice, and the legal dimensions of confidentiality. And it analyzes equity of access as an ethical problem, rather than only a resource problem.
Before You Begin
Neither Legal Nor Clinical Advice
This material is educational. It is neither legal nor clinical advice, and both vary by jurisdiction and by profession. As in section twenty-five point one, what follows describes concepts and principles, rather than the law of any particular place. For a real question, consult a qualified professional in the relevant jurisdiction.
Table 25.2.1 - Consent in Law
3 Elements - Missing Any, It Isn't Consent
The ethical account of consent was given in section twenty-four point five. The legal account requires three elements, and a consent missing any of them is not consent. Disclosure requires enough information for this person to decide. It is undermined by information given at a level or pace the person could not use, or by leaving out the alternatives. Voluntariness requires a decision free of coercion or undue pressure. It is undermined by dependence on an institution, by implied consequences of refusing, and by family pressure. Capacity requires the ability to make this decision, at this time. It is undermined when assessment is skipped, or inferred from the content of the decision. Notice that none of these failures involves anyone refusing to sign anything. And document what was explained, not merely that it was.
Disclosure and Voluntariness
From Professional Custom to the Person's View
What must be disclosed covers the nature and purpose of the intervention, its likely benefits, its material risks, the alternatives including no treatment, and the limits of confidentiality. In many jurisdictions, the standard for enough has shifted. It has moved from what a reasonable clinician would disclose, to what a reasonable person in this patient's position would want to know. That moves the test from professional custom to the person's perspective, with consequences for how much explanation is enough. Voluntariness deserves more attention than it usually gets. Coercion in health settings is rarely explicit. It works through dependence on a service, through what a person believes will follow from refusing, and through the difficulty of declining something recommended by someone with authority. Consent under legal compulsion is a further case. The tension there is not resolved by the fact that the person signed.
Capacity
3 Features, Regularly Misunderstood
Capacity is the ability to make a particular decision at a particular time. Three features of it are regularly misunderstood. It is decision-specific. A person may have capacity to decide where to live, but not to manage complex finances, or the reverse. There is no such thing as capacity in general. It is time-specific. Capacity fluctuates with the condition, with delirium, with fatigue, and with medication. A decision that can wait should wait for a moment when capacity is present. And it is presumed. A person is taken to have capacity unless the contrary is established. The burden falls on whoever asserts its absence.
Figure 25.2.2 - Capacity Assessment
Support Comes First
The functional elements usually assessed are whether the person can understand the relevant information, retain it long enough to decide, use or weigh it, and communicate their decision. All four are required. Failure at any one may establish absence of capacity, for that decision. But look at the first box. It sits before the four elements, not alongside them. Support to make one's own decision comes first. Omitting it is the most common error in this area.
The Unwise Decision Principle
An Unwise Decision Is Not Evidence of Incapacity
Making an unwise decision is not evidence of lacking capacity. That has to be stated flatly. The confusion is common, and serious, and almost always made in good faith by clinicians who are worried about someone. The reasoning is straightforward. Capacity concerns the process by which a decision is made, not its content. People with unquestioned capacity make decisions others consider unwise every day, about money, relationships, risk, and health. Suppose a test treated the content of a decision as evidence about the process. It would find incapacity whenever someone disagreed with the clinician. That would be a mechanism for overriding disagreement. So an unwise decision prompts a check that the process was sound. Was the information understood? Was it weighed? Was support offered? If so, the decision stands, however uncomfortable it is.
In the Clinic
Support the Decision Before Concluding It Can't Be Made
Capacity is often assessed as though it were a property to be measured. It is better understood as something that can often be created. Information can be given differently, at a different time of day, or in the person's first language. A family member can be present. Information can come in smaller pieces, or a decision can be broken into parts. In a rushed conversation on a ward round, a person may seem to lack capacity. In a quiet room the next morning, they may have it entirely. The support step is not a courtesy owed before the assessment. In most frameworks, it is part of the assessment, and skipping it makes the conclusion unsafe.
When Capacity Is Absent
2 Standards, 2 Different Questions
Two standards govern decisions made for a person who lacks capacity. A best interests standard asks what would be best for the person. It takes account of their past and present wishes, beliefs, and values, and the views of those close to them. A substituted judgment standard asks what this person would have decided. That is a different question, and it may produce a different answer. Who decides varies by jurisdiction. A clinician, a court-appointed decision-maker, a person holding a legal power granted earlier, or a court. Previously expressed wishes carry weight under both standards. Advance statements, from section twenty-five point one, are the formal version of this.
Supported Decision-Making
Support to Decide - Not Transfer of the Decision
Supported decision-making is a shift away from substituted decision-making altogether. The disability rights argument, from section twenty-one point five, is that legal capacity is a right, rather than a capability. So the right response to difficulty in deciding is support to decide, rather than transferring the decision to someone else. The practical difficulties are real. What happens where support does not produce a decision? How far can a supporter's influence be told apart from substitution? And how are urgent decisions handled? The direction of travel is toward support. The destination is contested.
Children, and Research
Assent, Evolving Capacity, and Felt Expectation
With children and adolescents, parental consent and the young person's assent operate together. And capacity evolves, rather than arriving on a birthday. In many jurisdictions, a young person who understands enough may consent independently to some treatment. The limits of confidentiality with a minor should be explained at the outset, in terms they can use. In research, consent must be informed and voluntary, and two difficulties are specific to this field. Where the condition under study affects capacity, the people whose participation would be most informative may be least able to consent. And patients may believe that their service expects them to take part. That is a voluntariness problem, not an information problem, and a clearer form does not solve it.
Confidentiality in Law
A Legal Basis Separate From the Ethical Duty
The legal basis of confidentiality is separate from the ethical duty. It comes from data protection law, professional regulation, and in some places specific mental health legislation. Privilege is a distinct concept. It is a legal protection against being compelled to disclose in proceedings. It exists for some professions in some jurisdictions, and a clinician should not assume it applies to them. In most places, a person has a right of access to their records, and to have mistakes corrected. And records routinely contain information about other people, who have rights of their own. Shared electronic records improve coordination, and widen who can see what. The tension is genuine. A system where every clinician sees everything supports continuity, and reduces privacy. Tight compartments protect privacy, and produce fragmented care.
After Death, and With Families
General Information Versus This Person
Confidentiality generally survives death, with some variations. Disclosure to family members and caregivers raises a persistent difficulty. A caregiver providing daily support may need information the person has not authorized sharing. The resolution is usually partial. General information about the condition, and about support for caregivers, can be shared without consent. Information about this particular person requires consent. Section eight point two supplies the argument for why caregivers' needs matter clinically.
Table 25.2.4 - Equity of Access
Barriers That Don't Fall Evenly
The treatment gap is usually presented as a resource problem. It is also a justice question, because the shortfall does not fall evenly. Cost and insurance status most affect people on low incomes, and those without stable work. Publicly funded provision and parity of coverage reduce it. Geography most affects rural and remote populations, where specialists are scarce. Remote delivery helps, with its own equity caveats. Language affects migrants and minority-language speakers. Interpreters should be standard, and assessment should be in the person's own language. Stigma falls unevenly across communities and occupations. And discrimination within services affects the groups documented in sections eight point three and twenty-two point one. Monitor outcomes by group, and act on what that shows. Finally, differential detection affects anyone who does not match a clinician's expected picture. The remedy is asking the same questions of everyone.
Disparities in Provision
Pointing at Services, Not People
Disparities exist in what is provided, not only in who reaches services. Differences in diagnosis, in the treatment offered, and in the use of coercive intervention are documented. The competing explanations from section eight point three apply in full. Differential need, expression, and help-seeking. Clinician judgment operating differently on the same picture. And instruments developed in one population. No group deficit is asserted by any of them. What can be said is that the disparities exist. And several of the explanations point at services, rather than at the people using them.
Table 25.2.5 - Rationing and Allocation
Every Criterion Has an Objection
Resources are finite, so allocation happens whether or not anyone decides it. Each available criterion prioritizes something different, and each attracts an objection. Greatest need prioritizes the most unwell, but may direct resources where benefit is least achievable, and away from prevention. Greatest capacity to benefit prioritizes those most likely to improve. It systematically disadvantages people with severe or chronic conditions. First come, first served rewards those best placed to seek help early, which compounds existing inequity. Equal shares ignores differences in need, which is itself unfair. And cost-effectiveness depends on how benefit is measured, disadvantaging conditions whose outcomes are hard to quantify. Every criterion has a defensible rationale and a real objection. That is why allocation is a genuine ethical problem, not a technical one.
Explicit Rationing and Parity
Pretending Not to Ration Isn't an Option
The argument for explicit rationing is that implicit rationing happens anyway. Through waiting lists, eligibility thresholds, and quiet decisions about who is offered what. Decisions made in the open can be contested, revised, and held to account. Decisions made by default cannot. The counter-argument is that explicit rationing forces distressing choices into public view, and can be used to legitimize under-funding. The point that survives both is that pretending not to ration is not a third option. Parity between mental and physical health provision is widely stated, and not achieved. It would need comparable funding relative to burden, comparable waiting standards, and comparable specialist access. And comparable attention to physical health within mental health services, which connects directly to the mortality gap.
In the Clinic
What a Person Should Know Before They Say Anything
The limits of confidentiality are the one thing that must be stated before, rather than after. If a person discloses on an understanding that turns out to be wrong, they cannot take back what they said. The failure is of consent, not of confidentiality. Three points cover most of it. The work is discussed in supervision. Certain disclosures are required by law, and are not yours to withhold. And safeguarding obligations exist. Saying this takes under a minute, and it is often left out, because it feels like a poor beginning. It is a far better beginning than the alternative.
The Clinician's Position
Advocacy and Conflicts of Interest
An individual practitioner cannot change a service's funding, the workforce, or the structural factors described in chapter eight. The argument that advocacy is still part of professional responsibility rests on one fact. Clinicians see the consequences of these decisions, and policymakers largely do not. Documenting and reporting what is observed is within any practitioner's reach. Neither overstating nor dismissing what one person can do is the defensible position. Conflicts of interest arise from funding sources, employer pressure to discharge or reduce contact, third-party payers, and the practitioner's own financial or reputational interests. The safeguard has the same structure each time. Disclose the interest. Separate the interested party from the clinical decision where possible. And document the reasoning, so someone who knows the interest exists can examine it.
Summary
Process, Support, and Justice
To summarize. Consent in law requires disclosure, voluntariness, and capacity. It fails most often through information the person could not use, pressure that is never stated, or a skipped assessment step. Capacity is decision-specific, time-specific, and presumed. Four functional elements are assessed, and support to decide comes first. An unwise decision is not evidence of incapacity. Where capacity is absent, best interests and substituted judgment are different standards. Supported decision-making is a shift away from substitution, with real difficulties unresolved. Privilege must not be assumed, and every limit of confidentiality should be stated before the person discloses. And access is patterned by cost, geography, language, stigma, discrimination, and detection. That makes it a question of justice. Explicit rationing is preferable to the implicit rationing that happens anyway.
About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Ethical Dilemmas in Practice: Informed Consent, Confidentiality, and Equity of Access
What does mental capacity mean in health care?
Does making an unwise decision mean a person lacks capacity?
What is the difference between best interests and substituted judgment?
Why is rationing mental health care an ethical problem?
About the Abnormal Psychology course
How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.
97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →