title: [Compulsory treatment in psychiatry: an ethical analysis of the new legal regulations for clinical practice].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The new legal regulations of compulsory treatment in Germany require a change in clinical psychiatric practice as well as an ethical analysis of the consequences for those involved.
  
  
  METHODS
  The new legal regulations are reported and via ethical analysis new problematic fields, such as consequences of the new law are identified and discussed in the context of psychiatry and law.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The main ethical identified problems are care of mentally ill with mental competence who refuse medical treatment, the different normative assessment of compulsory treatment and mechanical fixation, the ambivalent role of the conversation between psychiatrist and patient in order to change the natural will of the patient to avoid compulsory measures, the ethical consequences of questionable financial incentives in the context of compulsory treatment and the contradictive legal regulations in the field.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The ethical analysis of the new law on compulsory treatment in Germany shows chances for improvement of clinical psychiatric practice as well as normative problematic regulations and fields of conflicts.
authors: Institut für Medizinische Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Deutschland, jochen.vollmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de.
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Vollmann
mesh_terms: D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011570:Psychiatry / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38070
references: 22675508
references: Nervenarzt. 2012 Sep;83(9):1150-5
references: 22911323
references: Nervenarzt. 2001 Sep;72(9):700-8
references: 11572103
references: Nervenarzt. 2012 Sep;83(9):1142-9
references: 22911322
references: Nervenarzt. 2013 Jan;84(1):38-44
references: 22476441
references: Nervenarzt. 1997 Nov;68(11):888-95
references: 9732732
references: Nervenarzt. 2012 Jan;83(1):25-30
references: 22048569
references: Nervenarzt. 2000 Sep;71(9):709-14
references: 11042865
references: BMC Psychiatry. 2012 Dec 18;12:231
references: 23249413
references: Nervenarzt. 2012 May;83(5):638-43
references: 21633830
references: N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1834-40
references: 17978292
references: Nurs Ethics. 2011 May;18(3):304-16
references: 21558107
references: J Med Ethics. 2007 Oct;33(10):560-3
references: 17906050
references: Psychol Med. 2003 Nov;33(8):1463-71
references: 14672255
references: Nervenarzt. 2013 Jan;84(1):45-54
references: 22476513
references: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008 Aug;51(8):865-71
references: 18787864
references: Med Health Care Philos. 2008 Mar;11(1):43-56
references: 18165908
references: Psychiatr Serv. 2005 Sep;56(9):1115-22
references: 16148327
references: Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Mar;196(3):179-85
references: 20194537