Case Report No.

42 year old Aboriginal woman with a diagnosis of residual

schizophrenia, well functioning and symptom free for
many years. She was admitted with suicidal ideation in the
context of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. She
has 2 adult children, both of whom were removed from
her care at an early age. She considered termination of
pregnancy, although with overwhelming feelings of guilt:
the thought of a new baby was reprehensible for her.
Pregnancy was the result of a casual encounter with her
cousin who is regarded as an elder in the Aboriginal
community. The father of the unborn baby was unaware of
pregnancy. She continued to think about termination and
time became critical. The patient’s mental health
deteriorated, initially with depression, then psychosis. Her
capacity to give informed consent became impaired as her
mental state deteriorated. Pharmacotherapy was required,
but the issue of safety in pregnancy prevailed. Pressured
by elders to give the baby to a childless, schizophrenic,
younger sister (32),
As she had an idealized transference towards her
consultant, she refused to speak with nursing staff or with
registrar. She wanted the consultant to make decision for
her: “I will do whatever you say”.

Question: What should the consultant do?

1. The consultant should refrain from telling her what to do. He will
indicate to her the pros and cons of the alternative options, verify
that she has fully understood his explanation, and ask her to make
the relevant decision.
2. The consultant should regard her statement as a kind of
authorization, and will tell her what to do, taking into consideration
all relevant elements that will guarantee the fulfillment of the best
interests of the patient.

Comments:

The patient is in a difficult situation, because she is divided between the

wish to keep the pregnancy going, fearing the guilt generated by a
termination of pregnancy, and the wish to keep her sexual relationship
secret in her community (this is not quite clear from the narrative, though)
, which would become obvious if she delivers.
On the other hand, the situation of the doctor is also difficult. The status of
doctors is high in traditional communities, which is the case here. This is
why not satisfied by the proposal of the family to give the newborn away
for adoption to her schizophrenic sister, not willing to take the
responsibility to chooses termination of pregnancy, not happy with the
possibility of informing the community about the identity of the father,
and more than anything else, unable to take a clear decision because of
her mental disorder, she chose not to choose and to let this responsibility
to the doctor.
In this complex situation, it is clear that the doctor will not be able to take
alone such a grave decision. A collective one is to be worked out, including
members of the treating team, and some members of the community who
are accepted by the patient, in order to help her contributing to the
decision-making process. What ever decision is taken, it is definitely
important to take into account the cultural background of this specific
group. Western concepts of unfettered autonomy and individualism are
not readily transferable to other cultural contexts where family and the
immediate group, if not the whole community, have a saying on health
decisions and act as collective ego, a sort of group consciousness in
decision making. In these circumstances, despite the easy resolution of
the problem if he accepts to make the decision alone, it would not be wise
for the doctor to proceed this way. Assuming that the patient consents to
the family consultation, and she would find it very difficult to cut off the
cultural traditions, immediacy should not be a reason to circumvent an
established process.
Case Report No. 2

Topic: Legal competency of the mentally ill persons

A 35 year old single male, with secondary education,

works at a house sale company. At the age of 20, he had
an acute psychotic episode, which was diagnosed as
schizophrenia. He was hospitalized for 2 months. After
discharge, he complied with outpatient treatment plans.
He was brought to the court for income tax evasion.
Forensic psychiatric experts found him to be competent,
as his behavior was not consistent with the symptoms of
the illness previously mentioned in the medical records.

Question: Does the mental illness absolve a

defendant from criminal responsibility?
1. YES, mental illnesses deprive the patient of the ability to exercise
judgment, comprehension, free will, and intent which are necessary
conditions for finding a person responsible for his actions.
2. NO, mental illness may damage certain aspects of one’s
mentality and abilities without detracting from other aspects of
one’s mental ability. Every case should be examined with reference
to its particular characteristics and motivations. In the current case
the accused was indeed found responsible for his crime which had
no relevance to his illness.

Comments:
Justice Cardozo stated (1914):” Every human being of adult years and
sound mind has a right to determine what should be done with his own
body”.
The evaluation of a patient’s sound mind requires consideration of various
factors:
Can the patient take cognizance of the type of treatment?
Can he appreciate the nature and the consequences of the treatment?
Can he form the desire to undergo the treatment?

Generally, a person may be competent to make decisions regarding some

aspects of life or health but not others. For instance, some patients are
unable to make a reasoned decision concerning certain treatment options,
but they may still be able to indicate their rejection of a specific
intervention. From a clinical point of view, a diagnosis of schizophrenia in
a 20 year-old person is often provisional. It might well change to other
diagnoses such as bipolar disorder or even a non- psychotic one. It might
also be an acute post-toxic psychotic episode which disappears without
any mental aftereffect.

On the other hand, it is a classical tactics of offenders or criminals, to try

to present to the court a psychiatric diagnosis in order to alleviate or
exclude their legal responsibility, and escape sanctions.

The expert is asked by the court about mental status when the offence or
the crime was committed. A person who presented an acute psychotic
episode many years ago, and who lived a normal life during the
committing of a crime will be sanctioned as any other normal person.
When an offender alleges a mental condition as a defense to a criminal
offense, it is the duty of the Court to arrange for an evaluation of
competence to proceed to trial (mental state at the time of the trial) and
of criminal responsibility (mental state at the time of committing the
offense). Only a thorough psychiatric evaluation of these two levels of
competence could answer whether this accused acted in a state of mental
incompetence at the time of the offense and whether some level of
incompetence was present (due to a relapse of his condition or presence
of chronic symptoms from his previous mental illness). If this is confirmed,
then, the Court could entertain a plea of diminished responsibility or of
insanity. On the other hand, the history of any previous mental condition
would be irrelevant if the person is deemed to have acted in complete use
of his mental faculties at the time of committing the offense. Autonomy
and free-will in the commission or omission of any act are usually
assumed unless proven the opposite.
Case Report No. 3

A 27-year-old, single female appeared for treatment

complaining of severe binging and purging behavior for
over ten years duration. The patient spent well over 12
hours a day gorging on food and then vomiting. As
treatment progressed, it became clear that the patient’s
behavior was her attempt to prevent herself from acting
on severe and continuous suicidal ideation and intent. The
patient did not live with her family, but her parents were
located in the same city and were not aware of the
severity of her condition. The patient became engaged in
long-term outpatient treatment, with intermittent
hospitalizations when the suicidal intent became too
intense. After several years of treatment, the family
concluded that the patient had become overly dependent
on the psychiatrist who was treating her, and attempted
to have the psychiatrist’s superiors remove him from
treatment with the patient. Even when this occurred, the
patient did not wish her family to know about the nature
and severity of her condition.

Question: Should the family be advised about the

nature or severity of the patient’s condition?
1. NO. The medical team should respect the rule of
confidentiality.
2. YES. The risk of the patient’s putting end to her life
justified the interference on behalf of her close relatives

Comments:
It is clear that in the context of this therapeutic relationship the wish of
the patient should be respected, meaning that the doctor has no right to
disclose neither the diagnosis nor the prognosis to the parents. Even if
disclosed, this will be of no help to the patient, because of the gap existing
between the patient and her parents.
The patient is an adult and it appears that she is competent. Competent
adults can make irrational decisions for as long as they are reasoned
decisions. The argument that it will be good for her to obtain the support
of her family is paternalistic and utilitarian. It may be that, existentially,
she will be better off fending for her own survival on her own than
becoming dependent on the help of her parents. Freedom has its costs
and, sometimes, the worst slavery is that coated in goodness. This case
shows how important is the cultural background from the medical and
from the ethical points of view. It would be impossible to imagine an ill
single young girl living alone in a different home than her parents’ in a
traditional society. This is why the concept of autonomy is essential in
many countries from North America and Western Europe, and this is why it
is weaker in many traditional societies from Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Case Report No. 4

D. was a 43 year old man who suffered from a chronic and

severe bipolar affective disorder for which he was
undergoing a prolonged hospitalization. One day, the
nurse in charge of the ward where he was hospitalized,
received a phone call from D.’s sister informing her of the
sudden death of their father. The sister also gave the
nurse details of the father’s funeral which was to take
place the following day. The nurse contacted D.s
psychotherapist, who happened to be on vacation, asking
her what to do. The therapist instructed the nurse to
withhold the information from D. until her return from
vacation. This was so that she could inform D. personally
about the loss and could offer him the therapeutic support
necessary in order to avoid any major decompensation of
his mental condition and also to provide an opportunity to
elaborate in depth the relationship between D. and his
father.
The decision of the psychotherapist was reported to the
Department director, who immediately rescinded the
therapist’s decision and ordered that the patient be
permitted to attend his father’s funeral and to take part in
the Shiva (the traditional seven days’ mourning period in
the Jewish religion), even providing him with an
accompanying staff member. The Director’s reasons for
the decision were twofold:
1. Patients have the right to know and the right to
experience events of great personal significance at the
time when these occur and not when it is convenient for
the therapist to inform them. (In this case the therapist
was not prepared to interrupt her vacation in order to be
with the patient in his hour of distress.)
2. It is the duty of the staff working in the hospital to take
direct care of patients of those therapists who are
temporarily absent from the hospital because of illness,
holidays or sabbaticals etc. It is their duty to provide those
patients with all the necessary treatment and emotional
support, especially when the patients are confronted with
distressing personal events.
Epilogue: The patient participated in the funeral and the
Shiva, and behaved in a fairly well-adjusted manner. When
his therapist returned to the hospital she was able to
elaborate the different reactions of the patient to those
difficult events.

Question: Should the patient have been advised

about the death of his father and permitted to
attend the funeral?
1. NO, it was better to protect the patient from the grief
entailed in disclosure of the information and participation
in his father’s funeral.
2. YES, the patient has the right to be respected and to
receive truthful information.

Comments:
Patients have the right of self-determination, to make free decisions
regarding themselves. One of the most perplexing moral dilemmas in
health care results when the moral principles of benefiting the patient and
of respecting the patient’s autonomy cross each other. Not sharing the
truth with patients is to deprive them of their freedom to choose
whichever course of therapy they wish to take and to reduce their status
as moral persons. The conclusion that honesty is the best policy in
medicine raises the question of just how the truth is to be told. Full and
frank disclosure does not necessarily mean a painful detailing of every
possible facet of the decision.
The medical power is a reality. This is why it should go hand in hand with a
deep sense of responsibility. Even though the patient suffers from a
severe form of bipolar disorder, and may be particularly sensitive to loss
and separation, it would have been a significant trauma not to be
informed about the death of his father and not to attend his funeral. The
ceremonial surrounding it, with all the social support that goes with it, are
probably at least as efficacious as the help of a psychotherapist in
lowering the trauma impact on the patient.
In case of absence of the treating doctor, and in case of emergency, other
doctors of the medical team usually take the responsibility to change the
treatment, even if it is of a psychotherapeutic nature. The decision of the
head of the department, after discussion with the other members of the
staff, was the right one.
Within the psychotherapeutic process however, it is important for the
psychotherapist to clarify her position to the patient, and to explain why
she suggested not to inform the patient about his father’s death while she
was away for vacation.
The therapist’s reasoning to substantiate her decision to withhold the
news and to deprive the patient from participating in a social and religious
ritual of high significance to her could be seeing as paternalistic and heavy
handed and to be of benefit to her alone, not her patient. While the
therapist analyses the risk of revealing the bad news to the patient, she
does not analyze the risks of not revealing the news, which could be more
devastating than the reverse. Her self-serving decision is of no good to the
patient.