Refusal of Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa: Mental Health Professionals' Opinion on Willingness and Role Stress

Indications for involuntary hospitalization for refusal of treatment in severe anorexia nervosa: a survey of physicians and mental health care review board members in Japan

BACKGROUND

When a patient with anorexia nervosa refuses treatment despite a physically critical condition, the therapist considers involuntary inpatient treatment under the Mental Health Law. However, ethical and practical problems arise from its application. In this study, a survey of treatment providers for eating disorders and psychiatric review board members was conducted regarding indications for involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act for refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa.

METHODS

A survey of 212 physicians affiliated with the Japanese Society for Eating Disorders and 180 members of Mental Health Care Review Boards across Japan was conducted using six vignette cases of patients with anorexia nervosa refusing treatment.

RESULTS

Regardless of the duration of illness or age of the patient, few physicians chose compulsory hospitalization with or without the consent of the family, while the largest number of physicians chose hospitalization for medical care and protection when there was family consent. Among committee members, only hospitalization for medical care and protection was determined to be appropriate when there was family consent. Both hospitalization for medical care and protection, and compulsory hospitalization were deemed appropriate in the absence of family consent. Committee members who adjudged refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa as self-injurious behavior suggested that compulsory hospitalization was indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

When a patient with life-threatening anorexia nervosa refuses inpatient treatment, hospitalization for medical care and protection is actively chosen if the patient's family consents. Mental Health Care Review Board members considered this acceptable. However, if the family does not consent, the physicians did not choose compulsory hospitalization, and the psychiatric review board was divided on this. Consensus was not achieved in this regard.

International comparison of physicians' attitudes toward refusal of treatment by patients with anorexia nervosa: a case-based vignette study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the attitudes of physicians in Japan, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) toward refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was administered to physicians treating patients with eating disorder (Japan, n = 55; UK, n = 84; US, n = 82) to evaluate their treatment strategies for fictitious cases of refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa.

RESULTS

For acute patients, 53 (96.3%) physicians in Japan, 65 (77.4%) in the UK, and 54 (65.9%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the patient's family requested treatment, while 46 (83.6%) physicians in Japan, 53 (63.1%) in the UK, and 47 (57.3%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the family left the decision to the patient. For severe and enduring anorexia nervosa, 53 (96.3%) physicians in Japan, 62 (73.8%) in the UK, and 57 (69.5%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the patient's family requested treatment, while 38 (69.1%) physicians in Japan, 56 (66.7%) in the UK, and 55 (67.1%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the family left the decision to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians in all three countries tended to choose compulsory treatment irrespective of disease duration or whether the patient's family requested treatment or not. This may indicate that medical practitioners value the ethical obligation of beneficence, giving priority to the protection of life. Attitudes toward refusal of treatment during a life crisis tend to vary among medical professionals, particularly if the patient's family does not request treatment.