| Title |
Madness versus badness: the ethical tension between the recovery movement and forensic psychiatry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-010-9138-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire L. Pouncey, Jonathan M. Lukens |
| Abstract |
The mental health recovery movement promotes patient self-determination and opposes coercive psychiatric treatment. While it has made great strides towards these ends, its rhetoric impairs its political efficacy. We illustrate how psychiatry can share recovery values and yet appear to violate them. In certain criminal proceedings, for example, forensic psychiatrists routinely argue that persons with mental illness who have committed crimes are not full moral agents. Such arguments align with the recovery movement's aim of providing appropriate treatment and services for people with severe mental illness, but contradict its fundamental principle of self-determination. We suggest that this contradiction should be addressed with some urgency, and we recommend a multidisciplinary collaborative effort involving ethics, law, psychiatry, and social policy to address this and other ethical questions that arise as the United States strives to implement recovery-oriented programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2014.
All research outputs
#3,768,046
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#50
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,393
of 106,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 106,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.