Ethical dilemmas of Statutory Committees for involuntary hospitalization of mentally ill patients

Mentally ill patients whose reality judgements are severely impaired by reason of their illness and consequently present a danger to themselves and others, may be involuntarily admitted to a secure psychiatric ward for the safety of both themselves and the public. The Israeli Statute for the Treatment of Mentally Ill Patients, enacted in 1955 and amended in 1991, sets out rules and procedures for such involuntary confinement, and grants authority to the MOH District Psychiatrist to issue initial involuntary admission orders. However, a patient can appeal a District Psychiatrist order before a judicial statutory committee, comprising two senior psychiatrists and a legal expert in the capacity of magistrate. Such committee is also the statutory forum for determining whether involuntary hospitalization should be extended. The committee may quite often face ethical dilemmas when, on the one hand, there is no question that the patient's judgement is severely impaired but on the other hand, his/her condition does not fully meet the criteria of the statutory requirements for involuntary confinement. This paper discusses the legal aspects and requirements of involuntary admissions vis-a-vis the ethical dilemmas that such Statutory Committees may face when deciding to extend hospitalization or to release the patient from committal. The paper shall also illustrate dilemmas actually brought before the Committee that have ended in a final ruling that balances moral ethical dilemmas with the strict statutory requirements.