Against Their Will - Treatment for ED and other Brain Disorders

Yesterday, while exploring the links that accompanied Laura Collins' recently posted presentation at the International Conference on Eating Disorders (ICED) in May 2012, I noticed a link to an article by Tomas J. Silber, MD, MAAS titled Treatment of Anorexia against the Patient's Will:  Ethical Considerations.

Silber's topic and the outcome of this kind of decision, referred to here in Arizona as Title 36, has continued to be a thorn for me because I and my loved one's team have made the decision to utilize this law several times as a last ditch effort to save her life.   It's a wrenchingly difficult decision to make for reasons that Silber discusses.  In all cases but one (and a month later she and we suffered the consequences of the judge thinking she was competent and could make it and at that point Title 36 was invoked) approval was granted, the most recent being almost six months ago.   Only over the past two months has she begun to re-gain (the word is used to illustrate that once upon a time she was at a healthy weight and needs to return to it) the weight through balanced nutrition so that she (her brain/body) is able to do the work ahead.  This initial process - to reach stability - can take six months to a year!  She's never been able to do this for a variety of reasons.  The most recent step is an attempt to give her another opportunity.

Yesterday, a well-educated scientist who is knowledgeable (because she is also in recovery) about eating disorders, took a thoughtful look at the recent situation in Wales in which a judge, at the urging of the care team, has ordered forced feeding for a woman who had given up the fight and whose immediate family agreed with her decision.  The consequent at times thoughtful at times emotion filled discussion has raised, I think with great value, the topic of eating disorders, specifically starvation eating disorders to public consciousness at a much higher level than before. [The post referred to is no longer available on line.]

We need to keep this conversation going.

The bottom line, for me, that so many of us continue to state is that nutrition must come first, for without a return to nutrition, the brain and the body don't have a chance against a starvation eating disorder.  And that return requires stability for quite some time afterwards, too.  And, this is only the beginning.  The hardest part is ahead for this young woman and for others who need to overcome entrenched feelings and behavioral patterns. 

So, back to Dr. Silber's article which takes a look at the ethics of treatment against a patient's will.  He includes in his introduction the point, which is well-known in the eating disorder community whether treatment occurs at home or in a hospital or in a residential setting, "....In many, if not most, instances of treatment for AN, patients receive some form of treatment against their will."(p. 283)  One only needs to read Harriet Brown's important book Brave Girl Eating to learn that even at home getting a child in the clutches of a starvation eating disorder to eat isn't the simple matter of just placing a plate in front of her/him and pleasantly asking him or her to eat.  Rather, it's a matter of loving yet firm persuasion met with screams, and thrown and/or spit out food, and so forth until the child is re-nourished enough to start to participate in the process.

Silber goes on to say,  "....The situation can become even more difficult to address once patients reach the age of majority." (p. 283)

This is the situation for the woman in Wales.  This is the situation for those entrenched in eating disorders.  This is the situation for my family member.

As he notes, the patient's entire team (if s/he is lucky enough to have one) may not reach agreement on how to proceed and often the decision must be taken on by another family member or a doctor or ultimately a judge.

To approach a decision, Silber proposes what he calls Justified Paternalism (JP) (p. 284 of the article published in Adoles Med State Art Rev. 2011;22(2):283-8,x.) and he believes that JP must be wise, meaning that one must realize one violates a moral rule and second that there must be a compelling reason.

He refers to two papers the conclusions of which are similar to Title 36 with the addition of "c)the person is likely to be thankful for the treatment at a later time,.... and "d)the intrusion is generalizable, in the sense that those supporting it would wish the same on themselves."

[I actually wonder if the judge read Silber's paper because it's so compelling in its pro and con positions, particularly in regards to eating disorders.]

He next discusses autonomy and society's drift towards leaving decisions to the patient.  He recognizes during this discussion that someone with an eating disorder is quite able to present pseudo competence, therefore meeting standards for competency as also outlined in Title 36.

Yet, as many of us in the trenches and as Silber then goes on to recognize, those with a starvation eating disorder aren't fully competent; their brains and their bodies have been compromised and will remain so until they are renourished and stabilized in that renourished state.  He also recognizes the supreme importance of involvement of the patient's family and/or social network -- the team that Dr. Janet Treasure and others advocate.

Silber presents research that underscores his arguments and also highlights the difficulty of working with teenagers and more particularly adults, and closes his paper with an emphasis on values and the importance of how the person perceives herself/himself to be respected during the treatment process.  In other words, as he writes, "....At the end it is always values that underlie and strengthen the good work.  These include fundamental respect for the person, even as liberty is restricted; beneficence; and truth telling." (p. 286)

I have heard parents say that they and their family member(s)  are regarded as "less than"  in these kinds of settings and a balance must be found so that all concerned believe they are participating in the effort to help their family member recover.  Silber speaks to this important need.

Silber concludes, and I hope that the prolonged treatment the judge has ordered for the young woman in Wales and for others remanded to treatment evolves into, "....Treatment interventions for eating disorders need to include not only the biopsychoscocial and spiritual components that have enriched the field over the years, but also need to incorporate a philosophical dimension that takes into account a reflective understanding of patient autonomy; patients' rights; obligation to protect; respect for persons; right to treatment refusal; and, last but not least, justified paternalism and an expanded concept of autonomy." (p.287)

In closing, I want to thank the author known as Extra Long Tail and Laura Collins for their recent posts.  The information provided I am sure, with dissemination, will improve the care of others who have starvation eating disorders, a term that I came across last night in a book by Doreen A. Samelson, ED.D., MSCP titled Feeding the Starving Mind (New Harbinger Publications, Inc., 2009).