Minutus

"but most of the time at least initially people ( in India at least) need to
be treated without their even knowing that they are being treated"

Dear Colleagues,

How ethical is to treat some one who is an alcoholic and is making life a
misery for all concerned without their knowledge and consent?

The practicalities are to a degree simple, small amount of water in a glass.
One pill. Let all the water evaporate.
Then ensure the person uses that glass for drinking water - say with a meal.

But is it ethical?

Soroush

It is not ethical from a strict sense... but more than a misery for
others - sometimes people do not have the will to give up...
thinking of the withdrawal symptoms etc. And what is the ultimate
motive- to cure someone - we should probably apply the same yard
stick we would use for children... if the parents are willing
knowing fully well the possibilities and what is being done -
Of course there are two sides to any argument... and it varies from
country to country and legalities...
Generally when we needed to commit someone in psychiatric hospital
we need them to sign the consent form. In India at least 12 years
back to do this I have seen ward boys use various subbterfuges to
do this...when patients were brought a lot of times they are brought
with hands tied and with 3,4 strong persons accompanying them from
the village or community.The ward boys will say only if they accept
signing the consent form to commit them will they be released,
Ultimately the patient gets treatment and leaves to continue his /
her life and we are not gaining anything by admitting them and
treating them - this being a government run hospital - our salaries
were not dependent on how many we treat etc. and the patient does
not pay anything...
In a way it is like the end justifies the means -- but is not done
in every case and for everything...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:
least) need to
life a
in a glass.
with a meal.
Behalf Of
least
drunk-
well.
the
Jean
Homoeopathy and
regarding
document read
and/or
their use
its
incidental,
change your
single
Service.

Isn't it as ethical as giving a placebo to the patient who seeks medication?
Caro

The question of ethics can be tricky, IMO. An alcoholic or other
addict is ill, and in some cases their perceptions are faulty.
Sometimes they lack the clarity and/or the strength to make the change.
Sometimes they can't really conceive of an alternative--they can't
understand or imagine feeling "better", so they have little or no
motivation to seek what they can't envision. IMO for those reasons and
maybe others treating without consent might in some cases be
justified--at least initially.

The other angle is, does a person have a right, ethically speaking, to
do damage to others (e.g. those dependent on him or her) for the sake
of their own convenience or preference?

Asking question is *so* much easier than answering them!

Shannon

I find it funny to think of placebo as "unethical"... What *are* we
asking/paying the doctor to do--to give us medicine, or to get us well?
I'm not a fan of placebo, but I don't see why it's unethical?
Shannon

In psychiatry we approach the "informed consent" issue based on this
criteria: Is the person a danger to himself or others?" Danger defined as life
threatening. Just as a child would not be permitted to leap from tall buildings
because he "thought" he was superman due to a lack rational
judgement/experience/maturity, an adult who is lacking rational judgement about injuring
himself or others is not permitted to act out his wishes. I would not hesitate
to intervene homeopathically or allopathically if the issue at hand involved a
life threatening situation.
As far as homeopathically dosing another person because of behaviors that
are inconvenient or annoying, that is not ethical. To whom does the problem
belong? If the person who is annoyed can't deal with the other's behavior, the
onus is on the annoyed person to make the changes in themselves or remove
themselves from the situation. Dignity and respect are the keywords here.
Having the respect and sense of dignity for one's self to not allow another to
endanger you mentally or physically is paramount. Conversely respecting
another's right to live their life as they see fit, and allowing them the dignity
to make their own decisions is of equal importance. Both sets of behaviors
fall into that narrow circumscribed circle that allows freedom to act as you
wish without injuring others. This can get really nitpicky at times depending
on the circumstances but ultimately you can only see to your own peace and
happiness. As always (in my not so humble opinion) adaptability is the goal of
homeopathy.
Dr. Carol Bernat
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sometimes what is right or wrong is not universal...In India in many
instances the problem of an individual is not just the
individual's... the whole family and sometimes the whole community
takes part...in these cases the family itself suffers and the
question of dignity and respect is not an individual decision or
right; for good or bad that is how they live...even in Family therapy
the client may not be the patient -Strategic family therapists
differentiate between the patient and the client- this is when the
problem domain is considered the family system and not the
individual...ultimately the physician has to decide what is happening
and where he or she falls in this dynamis-to do some good to the
patient with the help of the patient's support network or keep quiet
in the name of ethics and moral posturing...there is no black and
white here...

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, CLBernat@a... wrote:
this
defined as life
tall buildings
judgement about injuring
not hesitate
hand involved a
behaviors that
the problem
behavior, the
remove
keywords here.
allow another to
respecting
them the dignity
behaviors
act as you
times depending
peace and
the goal of

In a message dated 8/8/05 8:49:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
hahnemannian2002@yahoo.com writes:

Sometimes what is right or wrong is not universal...In India in many
instances the problem of an individual is not just the
individual's... the whole family and sometimes the whole community
takes part
Your statement reflects the beauty of a community consciousness. In our
autonomous society the individual's rights many times take precedence over the
rights of the family or group. Not always a good thing. Just look at our
criminal justice system. I see a somewhat similar community consciousness with
the Amish communities here. Thank you for your well stated post.
Dr. Carol Bernat
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]