Attitudes among medical and law students toward decision-making in regard to involuntary psychiatric hospitalization

Background: The management of individuals with mental illnesses sometimes requires involuntary hospitalization. The Israel Mental Health Act requires that cases of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH) be periodically reviewed by the district psychiatric committee. The discussion in the committee often leads to debate regarding the need for an IPH potentially depriving the patient of his freedom. Little is known about the way in which the psychiatrists and attorneys on these committees arrive at their decisions. The present study was designed to examine the views of future doctors and attorneys concerning cases of possible IPH to determine whether their decisions would be influenced by their respective professional educational backgrounds. Methods: After compiling demographic data, we asked 170 students from each of the two disciplines what their decision would be in two hypothetical cases that dealt with the question of a prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. Questionnaires examining social distance and possible stigmatizing views concerning psychiatric patients were also distributed and collected. Results: The response rates for the medical and law students were, respectively, 90% and 85%. We found no differences between the medical and law students regarding their views on prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. This was consistent regardless of whether the hospitalization was against the patient's will or according to his wish and against the treating physicians' advice. We also found that the medical and law students had similar general views regarding psychiatric patients, but that the latter evidenced greater social distance than the former. Conclusions: Academic background and socialization were not found to influence the decisions of students regarding IPH. Educational programs and exposure to psychiatric patients during law studies are proposed to lessen psychiatric stigma and promote better understanding between members of the two disciplines. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.