Ethics of telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: let the patients make their autonomous choice

Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (1):32-33 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There is robust scientific evidence from meta-analyses in psychotherapy research that common factors such as the alliance between patients and therapists, empathy, goal consensus/collaboration, positive regard/affirmation and genuineness have a much greater effect on the overall psychotherapy outcome than the so-called specific factors like particular treatment methods or ingredients of therapy.1 The current evidence base also suggests that the effects of telepsychiatric treatment are comparable with those of face-to-face treatment, not only regarding clinical outcome parameters but also with respect to patient satisfaction, acceptance and adherence—all common factors of psychotherapy.2 According to a comprehensive review of the main ethical arguments for and against different forms of online psychotherapy, the online setting provides several weighty advantages: for example, increased access, availability, flexibility, convenience, satisfaction, acceptance and increased demand.3 Among the arguments against online psychotherapy, privacy, confidentiality and data security issues, emergency issues, as well as communication issues have been mentioned.3 Frittgen and Haltaufderheide 4 are concerned that telepsychiatry could ‘impact ethically relevant aspects of the therapeutic relationship’. They conclude that ‘there is evidence for ethically relevant changes of the therapeutic relationship in video-based telepsychiatric consultations’,4 particularly pertaining to ‘respect for autonomy, lucidity, fidelity, justice and humanity towards each other’.4 Indeed, video-based consultations as technically mediated communication ‘do not only transmit but transform what can be perceived, …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Coercing Future Freedom: Consent and Capacities for Autonomous Choice.M. Carmela Epright - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (4):799-806.
Coercing Future Freedom: Consent and Capacities for Autonomous Choice.M. Carmela Epright - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (4):799-806.
Autonomy and the akratic patient.C. J. McKnight - 1993 - Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (4):206-210.
Code Choice and Face.Eva Lavric - 2007 - Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 3:23-35.
Autonomy and the akratic patient.C. J. McKnight - 1994 - Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (1):54-55.
Telepsychiatry in the Age of COVID: Some Ethical Considerations.H. Paul Chin & Guillermo Palchik - 2021 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (1):37-41.
The Face of the Soul, the Face of God: Maximus the Confessor and Prosōpon.Marcin Podbielski - 2014 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 19 (1):107-144.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-12-23

Downloads
9 (#1,257,418)

6 months
2 (#1,204,205)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jana Sedlakova
University of Zürich

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations