Coercion and Compulsory Treatment in Anorexia Nervosa: a Systematic Review on Legal and Ethical Issues.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to critically summarize current literature concerning ethical and legal issues related compulsory treatment (CT) in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Relevant articles were identified following the PRISMA guidelines after performing title/abstract screening and full text screening. We built the search string using the following terms: "coercion", "compulsory/involuntary treatment", "eating disorders", "anorexia nervosa", "mental capacity", "ethical/legal issues". Research was conducted on original articles published from any time until June 2023.

RESULTS

Out of 302 articles retrieved, seven were included for the analysis, including five studies on mental health practitioners, and two on hospital records. The results show that mental health practitioners a) favor the use of CT, but the support is weaker in AN vs other psychiatric conditions (i.e., schizophrenia or depression); b) support of mental capacity is controversial and some variability was found between different categories of psychiatrists; in particular, both ED-treating and CT experienced mental health practitioners support higher use of CT and lack of capacity of AN patients vs. general psychiatrists; c) use of CT is more supported in the early vs. chronic AN, when chances of success are lower. The analysis of hospital records identified 1) comorbidities, previous admissions and current health risk as CT predictors in 96 Australian patients; 2) family conflicts association with longer hospitalizations in 70 UK patients.

CONCLUSION

CT is usually intended for patients with AN at the onset of disease, mainly to prevent risk of death and self-injury. However, there is some variability in the attitude to perform CT among psychiatrists working in different setting, also related to the concept of mental capacity. There are also cross-national variabilities regarding CT. We can conclude that forcing patients to treatment is a conceivable option, but the balance between protection respect for patient's autonomy should be evaluated on individual bases.