Legal issues in the treatment of a violent manic patient in a non-gazetted setting: a case report.
BACKGROUND
Psychiatrists in non-gazetted treatment settings, like psychiatric wards in restructured general hospitals and private hospitals, face a major problem when psychiatric patients who require admission are either not competent or refuse to consent to admission and treatment, although they are clearly in need of such inpatient management. Admission to the state mental hospital is often refused by their relatives for a number of reasons, like the stigma attached to admission to such a hospital, and the fear that future employment prospects might be affected.


METHODS
Mr X, a manic, violent patient, had no insight into his disorder and refused admission and treatment for his manic episode. He was the head of a large corporation, and his relatives were apprehensive he would make decisions that could jeopardize the company.


METHODS
He refused oral medication, could not tolerate parenteral haloperidol and had lithium nephrotoxicity. Inpatient electroconvulsive therapy had to be administered, after which he responded satisfactorily.


CONCLUSIONS
The legal implications in this case, like consent for treatment and admission, and ethical issues, are discussed.
Kok
L P
LP
Gleneagles Medical Centre, 6 Napier Rd, Singapore.
Tan
C T
CT
Lek
S P
SP
Ong
T C
TC
D000368:Aged; D001714:Bipolar Disorder / Q000523:psychology / Q000628:therapy*; D004565:Electroconvulsive Therapy; D016304:Hospitals, Private / Q000941:ethics; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010343:Patient Admission / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000941:ethics*; D014754:Violence / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology