Objective: The aim of this study is to analyse the ethical underpinning of involuntary treatment and to create a guide for psychiatric practice which clarifies its relationship with modern mainstream clinical ethics.
Method: Literature on ethics, involuntary treatment, civil commitment, diagnosis and law was searched and examined.
Result: Hospitalisation for involuntary treatment and control has blurred two important discriminations: the discrimination between clinical and social constructions of mental illness and the discrimination between therapeutic actions and policing control. Plotting these discriminations creates a map of ethics in involuntary treatment. Although there are clinical roles throughout involuntary treatment, the ethical issues vary according to whether clinical actions are taken on clinically or socially constructed diagnosis and whether the purpose of the actions is therapy or control.
Conclusion: Paternalist involuntary treatment should be undertaken more readily when it is for clinically defined illness and for the benefit of the patient. Where the conditions are defined by social behaviours alone, where treatment is not useful to the patient, or where actions have policing intent, particular ethical approaches need to be taken to defend the patient, the clinician-patient relationship and the reputation of the profession.