Case study
“Scott Starson: Refusing Treatment While Incompetent”
Scott Starson is a physics prodigy sent in and out of the psychiatric facilities in America and Canada’s united states since 1985. He was considered to suffer from a mental condition leading to his illness. However, his actions and behaviors were not considered criminal behavior, as he demonstrated an advanced state of mental illness. As a result, in January 1999, after the Ontario Review Board, the members recommended he must take twelve months mandatory detention as he was judged not for criminal actions but his behavior to yell death threats to neighbors and people in residential areas. The physicians’ responsible recommended mental medications to effectively transform him to become a “normal” member of society. Some of the drugs and treatment prescribed by the physician include anti-anxiety, mood-stabilizing drugs, and anti-psychotic. In case 1, “Scott Starson: Refusing Treatment While Incompetent,” it states, “MrStarson’s physicians proposed treatment for the bipolar disorder that included anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and mood-stabilizing drugs. Mr. Starson recognized that he was mentally ill and that he could not be released until he took the medication. Still, he refused to consent because he said the treatment would slow his thinking and prevent him from engaging in the scientific research that gave his life meaning—a state he described as “worse than death.” His physicians were convinced that taking the medication would be beneficial to the patient’s mental well-being and would alleviate any concerns about his behavior in society.” However, instead of taking the medication proposed by the doctors, he decided to stay in psychiatric facilities. He believed that conducting physic research was beneficial than taking medication and being a normal member of society. In disagreement with his sentiment, the doctors considered taking the case to court.
Mr. Starson was considered incompetent by the Ontario Review Board and his doctors responsible for seeing his well-being. However, after the case went to the Supreme Court, he was declared competent, a scenario that created doubt in his mother leading to her disagreement with the ruling. His mother understood that his erratic behaviors and actions greatly contributed to his poor life quality. Therefore, in case 2, “Scott Starson: Refusing Treatment While Incompetent,” it indicates “MrStarson’s mother, Jeanne Stevens, believes the Supreme Court decision has ruined her son’s life. The medication would have taken away his erratic behavior, allowing him to work and live in the community rather than remaining confined to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital with no prospects for release.” The decision was influenced by the result obtained through the competence test conducted by the doctor. In his view, the patient’s failure to make a choice matching the alleged objective did not indicate any form of incompetency. The law’s role is to protect the needs and expectations of the patient to enhance overall well-being. Therefore, the desire of the doctor to consider the use of competence outcome results from Mr.Starson making a decision contrary to the doctor, which is wrong. Therefore, the doctor was supposed to use the accepted standards of Decision-Making which states.
Mr. Starson’s case was reviewed, and the judge upheld the case against Mr.Starson. The doctors and Ontario Review Board considered the case invalid. The court states, case 3 “Scott Starson: Refusing Treatment While Incompetent,” the courts verdict states “The court concluded that mentally ill patients are presumptively entitled to make their own decisions regarding treatment unless a “balance of probabilities” exists to override the decisions.” As a result, the doctors and the Ontario Board’s decisions were considered to violate the right and freedom of Mr. Starson making essential and crucial decisions regarding his mental health status. Therefore, it is necessary to provide patients with an opportunity to make self-determined health status and social well-being decisions.
The appropriate approach to the case is to develop strategic measures to set the levels of reasoning required for the patient to be competent. It entails a proper analysis of the patient to understand the state of reasoning demonstrated by the patient. Therefore, the doctors’ roles in the scenario involve proper analysis of metrics to determine the compatibility levels demonstrated during the competency test. The most important approach is to understand that patients have right to the make choices to determine the state of well-being in society. “On this view, failure of the patient’s choice to match some such allegedly objective outcome standard of choice entails that it is an incompetent choice. Such a standard maximally protects patient well-being—although only according to the standard’s conception of well-being—but fails adequately to respect patient self-determination.” The approach is creating in developing rational intervention measures necessary in promoting and enhancing patients’ social well-being. Thus, the doctors and physician’s role is to reflect on the needs and expectations of the patient.
In summary, the case demonstrated by Mr. Starson creates a positive image of social development. These are reflected by the doctors’ desire to force patients to take medication because they understand how beneficial the patient is to develop in the normal society. As result, the OntarioAs a result Canada, after thorough determinationa on the presented case deemed Mr Starson as perfectly capable and can make his own decision. The review of the case resulted to verdict overturning doctors’ observation and recommendations and a verdict by the Ontario Capacity and Review Board on Mr. Starson’s mental capability and becoming a normal member of society. The ruling of the case demonstrated the chances of Mr. Starson recovering from his mental condition by necessarily taking mood-stabilizing, anti-psychotic, and anti-anxiety drugs as recommended. Therefore, the appropriate approach for doctors to ensure proper medication remained within the ability to provide rational advice to Mr. Starson on the importance of taking medication instead of forcing him. The importance of medication would have taken away his erratic behavior. In the event, the doctors never forced medication on him would have created a sense in him and change his mind about taking the medication. However, doctors’ actions and behaviors lacked regard and concern for the impacts it created on the patient. These are determined by the ability of the patient to make the right decision to take the medication.
References
“Bipolar Disorder.” Canadian Mental Health Association. Accessed November 11, 2017. https://www.cmha.ca/mental-health/understanding-mental-illness/bipolar-disorder/.
Fisher, Johnna. Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus. 2nd ed. Canada: Oxford University Press, 2013. Accessed November 11, 2017. http://www.econcordia.com/courses/biomedical_ethics/.
McLachlin, B. (2006, October). Medicine and the law: the challenges of mental illness. The High Court Quarterly Review, 2(3), 86+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=sain91783&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA189958110&asid=80f889df172e2e0393c295441a13708a
Rick Mofina, S. N. (2003, Jan 16). Court weighs scientist’s fate; brilliant Canadian physicist may be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs. The Windsor StarRetrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/253626205?accountid=42212