Pragmatic Approaches to COVID-19 Related Ethics Dilemmas for Psychiatrists

Psychiatrists face complex ethics dilemmas in the COVID-19 pandemic era when assessing dangerousness in patients or forensic evaluees who threaten to purposely infect others or spread the virus. Understanding local public health and medical quarantine laws for their jurisdictions can help guide treating psychiatrists in how to handle some of these situations; however, challenges occur when what is ethically best conflicts with the action that will confer the greatest protection against legal liability. Additionally, the calculus of weighing competing ethics considerations changes based on how relevant it is to the duties of a particular role (e.g., treatment, forensic, research, managed care, etc.) as well as the contextual factors of the situation. We present dialectical principlism as a framework to help psychiatrists resolve such ethics dilemmas related to the COVID-19 and future pandemics, illustrating how it can be applied in different roles (i.e., treatment versus forensic) and situations (i.e., when it is clear the danger of viral transmission is secondary to a delusion versus a delusion-like belief) to come to the best outcome that balances patient welfare, legal considerations, and societal safety. Occasionally, the most ethical action may entail small liability risks.