The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
FeaturesFull Access

Ethics Commentary: Ethical Issues in Bipolar Disorder: Three Case Studies

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.130107

Sound ethical decision making is essential to astute and compassionate clinical care. Wise practitioners readily identify and reflect on the ethical aspects of their work. They engage, often intuitively and without much fuss, in careful habits—in maintaining therapeutic boundaries, in seeking consultation from experts when caring for difficult or especially complex patients, in safeguarding against danger in high-risk situations, and in endeavoring to understand more about mental illnesses and their expression in the lives of patients of all ages, in all places, and from all walks of life. These habits of thought and behavior are signs of professionalism and help ensure ethical rigor in clinical practice.

Psychiatry is a specialty of medicine that, by its nature, touches on big moral questions. The conditions we treat often threaten the qualities that define human beings as individual, as autonomous, as responsible, as developing, and as fulfilled. The conditions we treat often are characterized by great suffering, disability, and stigma, and yet individuals with these conditions demonstrate such tremendous adaptation and strength as well. If all work by physicians is ethically important, then our work is especially so.

As a service to FOCUS readers, in this column we endeavor to provide ethics commentary on topics in clinical psychiatry. We also proffer clinical ethics questions and expert answers in order to sharpen readers’ decision-making skills and advance astute and compassionate clinical care in our field.

Case 1

Ms. Genera is a 36-year-old woman with bipolar II disorder, first diagnosed in college, who is brought to the psychiatric emergency room by her boyfriend of 5 years. He is hoping that she will be admitted to the hospital “before she goes all-the-way manic.” He reports that she “almost lost her job last time!”

Over the past 6 weeks, he reports that Ms. Genera has needed “less and less” sleep, has been cleaning the house “around the clock,” and has “wanted a lot of sex even though she is really pissed off all of the time.” The patient states that she is “fine, more than fine, in fact.” She says that she has not been able to sleep “because of the neighbors.” She says that they talk loudly at night and that she and the baby will “fix that” because babies are “noisy at night too!” Her boyfriend is confused by this comment, saying that they have no children—“I don’t know why she says stuff like that. I know it’s the manic-depressive, but it is pretty crazy.” Ms. Genera states that her thoughts are like “O’Hare airport!” and that she has “no problem keeping up” with the different “planes coming and going.” The patient says that she stopped taking all of her medications about 3 months ago—“That lithium is really hard on me. I don’t like to take it unless I have to.” She has no history of alcohol or other substance use, no history of suicide attempts, and no history of dangerousness toward others.

On mental status exam, Ms. Genera is a neatly dressed, mildly overweight woman who appears slightly older than her stated age. She is cooperative with the clinical interview and asks that her boyfriend step out of the room when she is talking with the doctor. She is speaking quickly and loudly, with appropriate affect. Her thought form is linear. She denies hallucinations and reports no thoughts of self-harm.

Ms. Genera says that she has “Bipolar II, not Bipolar I—I don’t have it that bad. Never have. Yessirree, I am really good right now.” She does not want to be admitted to the hospital, despite her boyfriend’s request, but volunteers that she will go to an ambulatory care appointment with her psychiatrist on the next day.

1.1 Most states have provisions for involuntary psychiatric admission when a person has evidence of a mental disorder that causes “grave passive neglect” or the potential for harm to self or others. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding a psychiatric admission for Ms. Genera, in light of these criteria?

A.

Ms. Genera may be admitted involuntarily because she has evidence of a mental disorder and the potential for harm to self or others.

B.

Ms. Genera may be admitted involuntarily because she has evidence of a mental disorder and may develop grave passive neglect and potential for harm to self or others.

C.

Ms. Genera may be admitted voluntarily.

D.

Ms. Genera may not be admitted voluntarily because she has evidence of a mental disorder and cannot consent to treatment.

1.2 Which of the following diagnostic tests should be performed at the time of this evaluation?

A.

Serum lithium level and complete blood count.

B.

Serum lithium level and pregnancy test.

C.

Serum lithium level and toxicology screen.

D.

Magnetic resonance imaging and complete blood count.

E.

Magnetic resonance imaging and pregnancy test.

F.

Magnetic resonance imaging and toxicology screen.

1.3–1.7 Match the following actions by the psychiatrist with the most appropriate ethics term (each term may be used once, more than once, or not at all):

A.

Autonomy

B.

Beneficence

C.

Compassion

D.

Confidentiality

E.

Justice

F.

Nonmaleficence

G.

Respect for the law

H.

Veracity

——1.3 The psychiatrist arranges to speak with Ms. Genera alone during the clinical interview.

——1.4 The psychiatrist respects the patient’s preference not to be admitted to the hospital.

——1.5 The psychiatrist recommends diagnostic tests to occur at the time of the emergency evaluation.

——1.6 The psychiatrist sits with the patient’s boyfriend to offer emotional support and “a listening ear” after the clinical interview with the patient is completed.

——1.7 The psychiatrist documents accurately in the electronic medical record the full set of concerns raised by the patient and her boyfriend.

Case 2

A resident in internal medicine with a well-established diagnosis of bipolar I disorder volunteers for a clinical trial that will test a new combination of medications and also involve two neuroimaging studies. The resident discusses the trial with his psychiatrist, who discourages the idea, stating that he has been concerned about the resident-patient, given the stresses of training and the severity of his illness. The resident responds, “Hey, Doc—get real! How often can you get $500—plus a brain scan, let alone TWO—free of charge?!” He decides to undergo screening for the clinical trial because he thinks he might benefit medically from an imaging test.

The resident knows that the trial will involve a washout period, so he decides to taper his medications in advance of the “official” enrollment date, 3 weeks away, which coincides with a planned vacation. Without medication, the resident becomes increasingly symptomatic. He has difficulty concentrating, becomes easily upset with team members, and develops progressively more erratic sleep. He was seen standing on the roof of the academic hospital and confided in a roommate that he was “tired of it all.”

Although he originally met criteria for the project, by the time of enrollment he had become too ill to enter the study. The psychiatrist-investigator permitted him to have the baseline neuroimaging study but did not allow the resident to progress to the full clinical trial. The resident returned to his apartment for his weeklong vacation. On the day he was scheduled to return to his training program, he did not turn up.

2.1 The psychiatrist-investigator designs a trial that excludes very seriously ill and potentially suicidal patients with bipolar I disorder because of concern about the risk:benefit ratio for participants. The psychiatrist-investigator’s decision is governed primarily by which of the following ethics principles?

A.

Autonomy

B.

Compassion

C.

Fidelity

D.

Justice

E.

Nonmaleficence

2.2 The internal medicine program director chooses not to call the resident’s parents but, instead, arranges for campus security to go to the resident’s apartment when the resident does not show up for work after his weeklong vacation. The program director’s decision to explore the situation is governed primarily by which of the following pairs of ethics principles?

A.

Autonomy and justice

B.

Autonomy and veracity

C.

Compassion and confidentiality

D.

Confidentiality and nonmaleficence

E.

Justice and nonmaleficence

2.3 The clinical psychiatrist discouraged the resident-patient from pursuing the clinical trial but did not act to prevent it. The psychiatrist’s decision to behave in this way is governed primarily by which of the following pairs of ethics principles?

A.

Autonomy and respect for the law

B.

Autonomy and veracity

C.

Confidentiality and nonmaleficence

D.

Confidentiality and veracity

E.

Justice and nonmaleficence

2.4 Informed consent for clinical research participation is based on the ability to communicate a choice, the ability to understand relevant information, the ability to render a rational decision, and the ability to appreciate the nature and significance of the decision. In this case, which of the following experiences of the resident-patient would demonstrate that he is unable to provide informed consent for the clinical research study?

A.

The resident-patient is in a depressed phase of bipolar I disorder.

B.

The resident-patient believes that the neuroimaging test will cure his mental disorder.

C.

The resident-patient is seeking to participate in the project because of the $500 compensation and access to free neuroimaging.

D.

The resident-patient is undergoing stress associated with clinical training.

E.

The resident-patient expresses passive suicidal ideation.

Case 3

An 18-year-old male previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder is brought by his best friend to the emergency department of a rural hospital located near a ski area. The best friend reports that the patient “is completely wild—he just won’t stop—he’s going to kill himself on the slopes!”

The patient was first diagnosed when he experienced a “flat out manic” episode at age 13 years; he has been stable and doing well on lithium. He has a psychiatrist and therapist “back home,” although he will not provide their names.

The patient confided to his best friend that he “secretly” stopped his lithium recently, and the best friend states that the patient has been using alcohol. (“He says, ‘I like to get high while I’m high.’ ”) The patient is on vacation with his grandparents, two younger siblings, and the best friend.

The patient shows evidence of intoxication and is irritable but cooperative during the initial interview in the emergency department. His vitals are within normal limits and are stable. No abnormalities are found on physical examination.

While waiting to be seen, the patient appears to “sober up.” He is calm, pleasant, and respectful and thanks his friend and the emergency staff for helping him. He appears embarrassed. No abnormalities are found on mental status examination. The patient refuses a drug or urine test, and he refuses to allow the emergency physician to contact his grandparents or parents. The emergency physician calls a psychiatrist for consultation, which the patient declines.

3.1 The emergency physician abided by the patient’s decision to refuse laboratory testing, did not contact the grandparents or parents, and allowed the patient to decline the psychiatric consultation. The emergency physician’s decision to behave in this way is governed primarily by which of the following pairs of ethics principles?

A.

Autonomy and confidentiality

B.

Autonomy and veracity

C.

Confidentiality and justice

D.

Confidentiality and nonmaleficence

E.

Justice and veracity

3.2 The patient in this scenario declines a complete medical evaluation in the emergency room. What are the four necessary capacities for decisional capacity for informed consent or refusal of recommended clinical care?

A.

Affirm, appreciate, understand, and reason

B.

Articulate, accept, affirm, and appreciate

C.

Communicate, understand, reason, and accept

D.

Communicate, understand, reason, and appreciate

E.

Understand, reason, accept, and appreciate

3.3 If the patient had not sobered up but, rather, had developed confusion and combative behavior, on what ethical grounds could the emergency department have contacted his family for additional information?

A.

Autonomy and confidentiality

B.

Autonomy and veracity

C.

Beneficence and justice

D.

Beneficence and nonmaleficence

E.

Justice and veracity

Answers

1.1

The answer is C. Ms. Genera may be admitted voluntarily, if the psychiatrist makes this recommendation. The patient does not manifest evidence of grave passive neglect, self-harm, or potential for harm to others and thus does not meet criteria for involuntary treatment, given the criteria outlined. The ability to give informed consent is contingent upon a number of factors; the fact that an individual has a mental disorder does not indicate a priori that an individual is unable to give informed consent.

1.2

The answer is B. Ms. Genera reports that she stopped all medications 3 months ago and that she is sexually active. A lithium level should be drawn to verify her report, and the possibility that she is pregnant should be explored, and not deferred, in order to provide an appropriate standard of care in this emergency evaluation.

1.3

The answer is D. Confidentiality. Respect for patient confidentiality is essential for ethically sound clinical care. Ms. Genera’s request to speak with the interviewer alone is important not only to ensure the comfort and rights of the patient but also to create an opportunity for the patient to express any new, significant, or embarrassing issues or to discuss relevant concerns regarding the relationship with her boyfriend.

1.4

The answer is A. Autonomy. The patient is experiencing symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder but does not meet criteria for involuntary treatment and has not demonstrated the inability to provide informed consent. Moreover, she has indicated that she is willing to seek outpatient treatment, that is, needed care in a less restrictive setting than an inpatient unit. The psychiatrist’s acceptance of the patient’s preference is a reflection of respect for autonomy.

1.5

The answer is F. Nonmaleficence. In this scenario, the psychiatrist should be concerned that Ms. Genera could be taking lithium while pregnant. The principle of nonmaleficence, that is, seeking to avoid harm for the patient, is relevant to the psychiatrist’s recommendation for immediate laboratory testing to determine whether the patient has in fact discontinued lithium and whether she is pregnant.

1.6

The answer is C. Compassion. The psychiatrist is demonstrating compassion, a hallmark of professionalism, in sitting with the loved one of a person with mental illness, listening carefully, and offering support.

1.7

The answer is H. Veracity. The psychiatrist who enters the full set of concerns raised by the patient and the boyfriend in the electronic medical record is engaged in honest and complete documentation. This practice is reflective of the ethical principle of veracity. The principle of veracity may be in tension or overt conflict with other ethical principles guiding clinical care, such as beneficence and nonmaleficence versus veracity when what is documented brings possible risks, such as stigma.

2.1

The answer is E. The three ethics principles that govern ethically sound human research are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, according to the President’s Commission in 1979. These three principles are referred to as the Belmont Principles of human research. Institutional review boards are entrusted with overseeing human studies to ensure that they fulfill these principles and with preventing/stopping those projects that have weak scientific justification or violate these principles or for which insufficient safeguards are in place. In designing a study that excludes categories of individuals because of concerns about an unfavorable risk:benefit ratio, an investigator is giving greatest weight to the companion principle of nonmaleficence, that is, “do no harm.”

2.2

The answer is D. The program director who chose not to call the resident’s parents without explicit permission and also chose to send campus security to the resident’s home is demonstrating respect for the resident’s confidentiality as well as concern for his safety and avoidance of harm, that is, nonmaleficence.

2.3

The answer is A. The clinical psychiatrist who advised the resident-patient not to enroll in the trial but did not act to prevent this decision is demonstrating respect for patient autonomy and for the law. A psychiatrist is often in the position of seeing patients make poor personal decisions but, ordinarily, is not entrusted by law with intervening unless grave danger to self or others is at stake.

2.4

The answer is B. Individuals may have many and diverse reasons for volunteering for clinical studies. The presence of an underlying mental disorder per se, even with passive suicidal ideation, is not sufficient to suggest that an individual lacks capacity for informed consent in all circumstances of human research. The presence of a delusion that a diagnostic or baseline procedure associated with a clinical trial will “cure” the prospective participant of a major mental disorder, however, suggests that the basis of the decision is distorted, ungrounded, and a symptom of the disease itself. This observation raises the risk that the prospective participant lacks sufficient decisional capacity to provide consent for research participation at this time.

3.1

The answer is A. The emergency physician who sought to perform a complete evaluation but abided by the decisions of the young adult patient is demonstrating respect for patient autonomy and confidentiality. Although the best friend is very conscientious and concerned, there is no evidence to necessitate intervention, overturning of patient preferences, or breaching of patient confidentiality.

3.2

The answer is D. The four elements of decisional capacity include the ability to communicate, the ability to understand, the ability to reason, and the ability to appreciate the meaning of a decision. The standard for informed consent or refusal of recommended care will relate to the gravity of the situation, that is, a more rigorous standard is upheld when the decision being made is more serious or has more serious consequences.

3.3

The answer is D. The emergency physician’s ethical obligation is to seek to help the patient (beneficence) and to avoid harm (nonmaleficence); in this case, the possibility of a serious condition must be explored, for example, ruling out a head injury or intoxication.

Address correspondence to: Laura Weiss Roberts, M.D., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; e-mail:

Laura Weiss Roberts, M.D., M.A., Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

Dr. Roberts reports: Owner, Investigator: Terra Nova Learning Systems

Resources

Srivastava S: Ethical considerations in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Focus (Fall); 9(4):461–464.LinkGoogle Scholar

Roberts LW, Hoop JG: Professionalism and Ethics: Q & A Self-Study Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2008.Google Scholar

Roberts LW, Dyer A: A Concise Guide to Ethics in Mental Health Care. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar