Gupta Mona
Department of Psychiatry, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Spring;52(2):276-88. doi: 10.1353/pbm.0.0081.
Many psychiatrists have endorsed the idea of evidence-based psychiatry, the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to psychiatric practice. Proponents of an evidence-based approach to psychiatry hope that if practice is driven by "hard" scientific data, there will be greater potential to help patients. In other words, advocates of evidence-based psychiatry aim to bolster psychiatry's ethical standing through scientific evidence. Can EBM provide this ethical substantiation to psychiatry? This article provides an overview of some of the main ethical issues within psychiatry and examines three interrelated questions: (1) to which ethical values is EBM committed? (2) which ethical theory is reflected in these values? and (3) can these values and theories resolve existing ethical issues in psychiatry? EBM strives for the "greatest good for the greatest number," where good is defined as improved health. This utilitarian orientation cannot, however, address critical areas of moral importance for psychiatry, such as how its practitioners differentiate normal from abnormal, how they determine which forms of suffering should be alleviated through psychiatric means, and when involuntary intervention is ethically justified. The ethical principles implicit in EBM are too limited to serve as an ethical basis for psychiatry.
许多精神科医生都认可循证精神病学的理念,即将循证医学(EBM)的原则应用于精神病学实践。循证精神病学方法的支持者希望,如果实践由“硬”科学数据驱动,那么帮助患者的潜力将会更大。换句话说,循证精神病学的倡导者旨在通过科学证据来提升精神病学的伦理地位。循证医学能为精神病学提供这种伦理依据吗?本文概述了精神病学中的一些主要伦理问题,并审视三个相互关联的问题:(1)循证医学秉持哪些伦理价值观?(2)这些价值观反映了哪种伦理理论?以及(3)这些价值观和理论能否解决精神病学中现有的伦理问题?循证医学追求“为最多的人带来最大的益处”,其中益处被定义为健康改善。然而,这种功利主义取向无法解决精神病学在道德层面的关键领域问题,比如从业者如何区分正常与异常,如何确定哪些形式的痛苦应通过精神病学手段缓解,以及非自愿干预在伦理上何时是合理的。循证医学中隐含的伦理原则过于有限,无法作为精神病学的伦理基础。