Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: In Israel a general code of ethics exists for physicians, drafted by the Israel Medical Association. The question arises whether psychiatrists require a separate set of ethical guidelines.

Objectives: To examine the positions of Israeli psychiatrists with regard to ethics in general and professional ethics in particular, and to explore opinions regarding a code of ethics or ethical guidelines for psychiatry. 

Methods: A specially designed questionnaire was compiled and completed by psychiatrists recruited for the study. 

Results: Most participants reported low levels of perceived knowledge regarding ethics, professional ethics, and the general code of ethics. Older and more experienced professionals reported a higher level of knowledge. Most psychiatrists agreed or strongly agreed with the need for a distinct code of ethics/ethical guidelines for psychiatrists. This support was significantly higher among both psychiatrists under 50 years and residents. 

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the existing code of ethics and position papers may not be sufficient, indicating a potential need to develop and implement a process to create the ethical code itself. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of ethics education, suggesting that the need for a code of ethics is more urgent in the early stages of professional training, as younger professionals may be more exposed to advanced media technology. While some may fear that a distinct code of ethics will distance psychiatry from modern medicine, others assert that the profession combines aspects from the humanities and social sciences that require a unique sort of management and thus this profession requires a distinct code of ethics.

 

Background: In criminal law, psychiatrists are consulted regarding the "insanity defense" and the defendant's competency to stand trial. Court-ordered hospital admissions for such evaluations are on the increase, creating a major burden on the health system.

Objectives: To assess, in a hospital setting, whether hospitalization of the defendant is necessary for conducting a psychiatric evaluation.

Methods: A 6 month prospective observational study exploring the phenomenon was conducted at the Beer Yaakov Mental Health Center. The psychiatrist was asked both at the initiation and again at the end of the assessment process whether the subject was competent to stand trial and responsible for his/her actions and if hospitalization was necessary in order to conduct the evaluation. 

Results: During the study period there were 112 admissions with a court request for a psychiatric evaluation. In 73 of the cases (65.2%) the evaluating psychiatrist believed there was no need for hospitalization. This assessment did not change by the end of the hospitalization in all cases. Employment and alcohol use were the only factors associated with a lower need for hospitalization (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.07–0.77, and 0.34, 95%CI 0.13–0.90, respectively).

Conclusions: In the majority of cases, based on the evaluating psychiatrist's responses, the evaluation could have been conducted without need for hospitalization. The findings indicate that an outpatient unit designated to write court-requested psychiatric evaluations could significantly reduce the rates of hospital admissions for this purpose.