Chapter 6: Legal & Ethical Issues in Psychiatric Nursing

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement, not replace, the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Imagine this scenario.

You're a nurse.

You're trying to protect a patient, but they are really fighting you, demanding to be discharged.

They're highly paranoid, maybe psychotic, and you know deep down they just aren't safe to leave.

Every single move you make in that moment, what you document, how you respond verbally, it's all viewed through this really intense legal and ethical lens.

Our mission today is a deep dive right into that complex world.

We're summarizing the core legal and ethical framework for psychiatric mental health nursing,

basically pulling from Varkarolis' foundations.

And why is this so critical?

Well, as you know, psychiatric patients often deal with significant alterations in their thought, mood, behavior, things like paranoia, deep depression.

These things can really impact their ability to make informed decisions.

And that immediately raises the stakes for every professional choice you make.

Absolutely.

And, you know, to navigate those really tricky choices, you have to start with the basics, the foundational concepts.

We can begin with morals.

Morals are really just your personal beliefs about what's right and wrong.

You know, basic stuff, lying is wrong, murder is wrong.

Then you kind of step up to ethics.

That's the broader philosophical look at what should be considered right or wrong in society.

It's more of a societal guide.

And drilling down even further, we get bioethics that's specifically applying ethical principles to health care questions.

OK, so it sounds less like just a gut feeling, a personal choice and more like a structured map for navigating these, well, sometimes impossible feeling situations.

OK, let's unpack this.

Starting with that map, the core ethical principles that guide psychiatric care.

There are six, right?

That's right.

Six main principles that really guide our actions.

First up is autonomy.

This is all about respecting the patient's right to make their own decisions.

A classic example in psych nursing is the patient's right to refuse medication, even if we strongly believe it would help them.

OK, respecting their choice.

Yeah.

Then number two.

Number two is beneficence.

This is the duty to actually do good, to act in a way that benefits the patient.

So this isn't just about not doing harm.

It's actively helping, like maybe spending extra time trying to calm an anxious patient instead of immediately going for meds.

Right.

The positive action.

And that leads nicely into number three.

Exactly.

Number three is non -maleficence, the duty to do no harm.

This is often seen as more of a passive thing, like making sure you protect confidential patient information.

Don't cause harm by omission or action.

Got it.

Do no harm.

Number four.

Four is justice.

This principle deals with fairness, distributing resources and care equally.

The textbook is a really stark example.

An ICU nurse needs to give the same level of attention and care to someone who attempted suicide as they would to someone who had a stroke or an aneurysm.

The reason they're there can't change the standard of care.

It has to be equitable.

That's a powerful point.

Equal care, regardless of circumstance.

OK, number five.

Number five is fidelity.

This is about maintaining loyalty, commitment and trust.

For nurses, this means things like keeping up with your education, staying competent, but also, really importantly, advocating for your patient's best interests, especially if they can't advocate for themselves.

Maintaining that professional promise.

And finally, number six.

And last but not least, veracity.

This is simply about being truthful, communicating honestly, for instance, always clearly explaining the purpose of a medication, what it does and importantly, its potential side effects.

No sugarcoating.

OK, six core principles.

Yeah.

But what happens when they, well, clash, which must happen all the time in psych?

Oh, absolutely.

That's when you hit an ethical dilemma.

You've got a conflict between two or more courses of action and maybe none of them feel entirely right.

Or maybe multiple options seem beneficial, but conflict.

Vargarolis uses the example of a pregnant woman who has schizophrenia.

Maybe her family wants her to have an abortion, but she wants to keep the baby.

Honoring her autonomy means supporting her choice.

But then beneficence comes in.

What about the antipsychotics?

Continuing them might pose risks to the fetus, but stopping them could trigger a severe relapse for the mother.

Wow.

So you're stuck between potential harm to the fetus and potential harm to the mother.

And then there's the whole question of her ability to care for the baby later.

Precisely.

It's a really tough situation with no easy answer.

And in that kind of immediate conflict, the nurse's priority isn't usually to make the call alone.

It's about pausing, documenting everything clearly and initiating consultation, bringing in the ethics committee, senior staff, the treatment team.

You halt the immediate conflict point and get the stakeholders involved.

That makes sense.

Consultation and documentation are key.

And this whole area gets even more complicated with new technology, doesn't it?

Like genetic testing.

Definitely.

Take pharmacogenetic testing.

The idea is to use DNA to figure out the best antidepressant for a patient.

Sounds great, right?

But the FDA has actually cautioned against its widespread use.

They say there isn't enough solid research or clinical evidence to back it up reliably yet.

Hmm.

So using it could actually violate non -moleficence doing no harm?

Potentially, yes.

If the test results aren't reliable and they lead to changing a medication or dose incorrectly, that could harm the patient.

It's similar with predictive psychiatry, using things like genome scans to predict risk for mental illness, like Alzheimer's.

This raises huge autonomy issues.

What if someone wants to know their risk, but finding out also reveals risk for their parent who doesn't want to know?

And then there's the emotional burden, knowing you have a high risk for something when maybe there aren't great prevention options.

It could lead to distress, stigma, even discrimination.

Yeah, the ethics are definitely racing to keep up with the science there.

It really underscores that when the ethical path isn't clear or science is ahead of the rules, you have to rely on the law, the actual statutes.

And the legal side of mental health care has seen some big shifts, moving towards community care and really emphasizing civil rights.

A really important piece for you as a nurse or student to know is the federal law on parity.

What does that mean in practice?

Parity basically means that health insurance plans are legally required to cover mental health and substance use disorder services at the same level as they cover general medical or surgical care.

Equal payment, equal coverage, it was a major, major step forward.

Okay, equal coverage.

Now let's talk about how patients actually get into treatment.

Admissions.

Right.

Broadly, admissions fall into two categories.

Voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary is straightforward.

The patient recognizes they need help, they apply in writing for admission, and crucially, they retain the right to request release.

But they can still be held if things change, right?

Yes.

If a voluntary patient requests discharge but the team believes they're now a danger,

the hospital can initiate proceedings to change their status to involuntary.

Involuntary commitment, also called assisted inpatient treatment, is court ordered.

It's used when someone won't seek help voluntarily but meets strict legal criteria.

And what are those criteria, generally?

Generally, it requires a diagnosed mental illness and one of the following.

They pose a danger to themselves or others, they're gravely disabled, meaning they can't provide for their basic needs like food or shelter or they need treatment but are unable to seek it because of the illness itself.

Okay, so it's a high bar.

Yeah.

And if someone feels they're being held unlawfully, this is where it gets really interesting legally, right?

Absolutely.

They have legal recourse.

The big one is the writ of habeas corpus.

It's a formal legal procedure where the patient or someone on their behalf can challenge the legality of their detention before a judge.

A challenge to their confinement.

And institutions can't just hold people indefinitely or in the most restrictive way possible.

No, definitely not.

That's where the least restrictive alternative doctrine comes in.

The law mandates that care providers must use the least drastic, least restrictive names necessary to achieve the treatment goals while still keeping the patient and others safe.

So if outpatient treatment can work safely,

hospitalization might be considered illegally restrictive.

And there's also emergency commitment.

Yes, emergency commitment is for temporary admission, usually for situations where someone is acutely dangerous or disabled.

It allows for observation, diagnosis, and treatment for a short period, typically 24 to 96 hours, depending on state law, while legal proceedings for longer commitment might be initiated.

Okay, and then thinking about leaving the hospital,

discharge isn't always just walking out the door, is it?

Not always, especially after involuntary commitment.

There's unconditional release, which is just that the patient -institution relationship ends, they're free to go.

But there's also conditional release.

This often applies to involuntarily admitted patients.

They're discharged to the community, but with conditions like required outpatient appointments or medication adherence, if they don't follow the conditions, they can potentially be readmitted based on that original commitment order without needing a whole new court process.

And that ties into assisted outpatient treatment.

Exactly, assisted outpatient treatment, AOT, is court -ordered treatment in the community.

It's often used for people with a history of repeated hospitalizations or nonadherence.

Sometimes, receiving social services or benefits might be tied to complying with the AOT order.

The goal is to prevent the revolving door of hospitalizations.

It's a complex system of checks and balances.

Let's shift focus a bit to the rights patients retain even when they're hospitalized, maybe even involuntarily.

Yes, this is crucial.

Patients always have the fundamental right to treatment.

This includes the right to quality care, delivered with dignity and respect in the least restrictive environment possible.

And perhaps the most debated right in psych care, the right to refuse treatment.

How does that work, especially if someone is involuntarily committed?

It's a cornerstone right.

Even involuntarily committed patients generally have the right to refuse medication or other treatments.

Now, this right isn't absolute.

In an emergency, if someone poses an immediate danger, they can be medicated against their will.

Outside of emergencies, to medicate someone involuntarily requires a formal process, often a court hearing.

Specific criteria must be met proving the person lacks capacity to decide that the treatment benefits outweigh risks, that less restrictive options failed, things like that.

It's a very high legal standard.

You mentioned capacity.

Can you clarify the difference between capacity and competency?

They sound similar.

They do, but they're distinct.

Capacity is a clinical determination.

It refers to a person's current ability to understand information about their health, weigh risks and benefits, and make and communicate a decision.

It can fluctuate.

Competency, on the other hand, is a legal determination made by a court.

Patients are presumed competent unless a judge declares them incompetent.

Only then can someone else, like a guardian, make decisions for them.

Okay, clinical versus legal.

Got it.

And this all ties into informed consent, right?

Absolutely.

Informed consent is a legal and ethical requirement.

Before any treatment, the provider, usually the prescriber for meds or major procedures, must give the patient specific information.

The nature of their condition, the purpose of the proposed treatment, the risks and benefits, alternative options, and the probability of success.

And critically, the patient's agreement must be voluntary, free from coercion.

So that's the formal consent.

What about day -to -day nursing, like giving routine meds?

That often falls under implied consent.

When you approach a patient, explain you have their scheduled medication, offer it to them, and they willingly take it, their action implies consent for that specific dose.

It doesn't require the whole formal process every time.

Makes sense.

Now let's talk about a really sensitive area.

Restraint and seclusion.

This has a dark history in psychiatry.

It absolutely does.

And because of past abuses, the laws and guidelines around restraint and seclusion are incredibly strict now.

The absolute guiding principle is always, always the least restrictive means.

You must try everything else.

First, verbal de -escalation.

Reducing stimuli, offering PRN medication, redirecting the patient.

Only as a last resort.

Only as a last resort when there's imminent risk of harm to the patient or others.

And even then, the type of restraint used matters.

Chemical restraint is using medications solely to restrict movement.

Mechanical involves devices.

Physical is holding.

There's even controversy around things like therapeutic holding.

The key is, it must be for safety, not punishment or convenience.

And the time limits are incredibly short, aren't they?

It's extremely short, reflecting how seriously the law takes depriving someone of liberty.

For adults, a mechanical restraint order typically lasts only four hours.

For adolescents, age nine to 17, it's two hours.

And for kids under nine, just one hour.

These orders can be renewed, but only up to 24 hours total, and require constant assessment, usually every 15 to 30 minutes, and meticulous documentation of everything.

Meticulous documentation seems to be a theme here.

Let's touch on confidentiality.

Everyone knows Hypo, but what are the key points for psych nursing?

Confidentiality is both an ethical duty and a legal one under Hypo.

As a nurse, you cannot disclose patient information without their explicit consent.

Only the patient holds the privilege and can waive it.

This is huge in the age of social media sharing anything identifiable, even seemingly innocuously, is a major brooch and has legal consequences.

And there's something called the dead man's statute in some places, meaning the duty of confidentiality can continue even after death.

But it's not absolute, right?

There are exceptions.

Correct.

Confidentiality is not absolute.

The most famous exception is the duty to warn and protect third parties.

This comes from the Tarasoff case back in the 70s.

If a therapist determines that their patient presents a serious danger of violence to a specific identifiable person, they have a legal obligation to take steps to warn that potential victim and or notify authorities.

Public safety can override confidentiality in that specific instance.

And there are mandatory reporting laws too.

Yes, absolutely.

Nurses are mandated reporters.

You have a legal duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect, as well as abuse or neglect of older adults and dependent adults.

That duty overrides patient confidentiality.

Okay, a lot of duties and rights.

Now let's pivot to when things go wrong.

Legal liability for nurses.

We're talking about tort law here.

Exactly.

A tort is basically a civil wrong, an act or a mission that causes injury or harm to someone else, leading to legal liability for the person who committed the tortious act.

And these could be intentional or unintentional.

Let's start with intentional torts.

These are willful acts.

Yes, willful acts that violate another person's rights or property.

In nursing, common examples include assault, which is the threat.

Just intentionally making someone fear harmful contact, like verbally threatening to restrain a patient inappropriately.

No touching is required.

Battery is the actual touching harmful or offensive touching without consent.

Like giving an injection against a patient's will after they refused or even just shoving a patient.

Okay, threat versus actual contact.

What about holding someone?

That falls under false imprisonment.

This is confining someone against their will without legal justification.

Using restraints or seclusion improperly or even preventing a voluntary patient from leaving when there's no legal basis to hold them can qualify.

The Ploumenor case mentioned in the text is an example a patient was wrongly transferred, confined and denied medical care, leading to liability for false imprisonment and malpractice.

So those are the intentional acts.

What about unintentional ones?

Those fall under negligence and malpractice.

Negligence is basically carelessness, failing to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances resulting in harm.

Malpractice is often called professional negligence.

It's when a nurse fails to act according to the established professional standards of care and that failure causes injury or damage to the patient.

And to prove malpractice, the patient needs to establish several things, right?

Yes, there are typically five elements required.

One, duty.

The nurse had a duty of care to the patient.

Two, breach of duty.

The nurse failed to meet the required standard of care.

Three, cause in fact.

The nurse's action or inaction actually caused the injury.

If not for what the nurse didn't do, this wouldn't have happened.

Four, proximate cause or foreseeability was the type of harm that occurred a foreseeable consequence of the nurse's breach.

And five, damages.

The patient actually suffered harm or injury, which can be physical, emotional, or financial.

And how is that standard of care determined?

What are nurses measured against?

It's determined by several sources.

The standards for nursing care come from state nurse practice acts, professional organizations like the ANA and APNA publish standards, the specific policies and procedures of the healthcare institution are critical, and even custom or common practice among nurses can be considered.

Essentially, what would a reasonably skilled and prudent nurse have done in that same situation?

And nurses aren't just responsible for their own actions, right?

They have a duty regarding others' practice too.

Absolutely.

Nurses have a professional and often legal duty to intervene and report questionable practice by any member of the healthcare team if it poses a risk to patient safety.

This includes negligence, impairment, or unethical conduct.

The example given is Amanda, the nurse who questioned and held a Zoloft order because the patient was recently on an MAOI, Nardole.

She knew the interaction could be fatal.

Her duty was to contact the prescriber.

If the prescriber refused to change the order despite the clear danger, her next step must be to continue holding the med and immediately contact her nursing supervisor to escalate the concern.

You cannot follow an order you know to be unsafe.

That takes courage, but is a fundamental responsibility.

It really is, and it highlights the importance of knowing the standards and trusting your professional judgment.

Before we wrap up, let's briefly touch on the flip side, nurse safety.

The focus is often on patient rights, but what about violence against staff?

That's a really important point.

Violence in the psychiatric setting is unfortunately common.

While the focus is rightly on therapeutic management and patient rights, nurses also have the right to a safe work environment.

Many states have laws that enhance criminal charges for assaulting healthcare workers.

Although it's true that prosecutors may be hesitant to charge patients who are severely mentally impaired and perhaps not fully responsible for their actions, the principle remains.

Violence against staff is unacceptable.

And throughout all these complex situations, admissions, rights, refusals, potential liability,

what's the one constant protector for the nurse?

Without a doubt, documentation.

Meticulous, objective, timely documentation.

It serves so many purposes, continuity of care,

quality improvement, risk management, but legally, it's your absolute lifeline.

The courts often operate under the assumption if it wasn't documented, it wasn't done.

Your charting is critical evidence.

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

A harsh reality.

If we connect this to the bigger picture, all these legal rules and ethical principles, they form a kind of scaffolding.

It's there to protect the dignity and rights of often very vulnerable patients, while also giving professionals like you a clear standard to follow and frankly, a way to defend your practice when necessary.

Okay, so let's quickly recap the big takeaways.

Those six ethical principles, autonomy, beneficence, non -maleficence, justice, fidelity, veracity, they're your moral compass.

Understand the laws around admissions, voluntary, involuntary, conditional, because they protect patient liberty.

Remember that informed consent and confidentiality are absolute cornerstones, but with specific exceptions.

And be very aware that tort law holds you accountable for your actions, intentional or not, documentation is everything.

This raises an important question.

Looking forward, especially with technology moving so fast, things like those genome scans for predicting mental illness risk, how do we make sure our fundamental ethical duties, especially autonomy and non -maleficence can actually keep pace?

How do we handle that predictive information responsibly when the scientific evidence for prevention or intervention might still be lagging way behind our ability to just predict?

That is a huge challenge, a real ethical frontier for mental health professionals moving forward.

Something to definitely keep thinking about.

Thank you so much for joining us for this deep dive into the legal and ethical landscape of psychiatric nursing.