Superseding Psychiatric Advance Directives: Ethical and Legal Considerations

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) were introduced in the 1980s as legal instruments for psychiatric patients to retain some choice over their own mental health treatment during periods of decisional incapacity. However, PADs are nested in larger structures of mental health law and policy that protect the interests of parties other than the patient, and which, in situations of conflict involving the treatment of incapacitated patients, tend to favor the clinician’s professional judgment over the patient’s manifest wishes to avoid standard treatment. Thus, PADs are trumped by civil commitment law and may also be legally overridden by clinicians who, acting in good faith, consider PAD instructions to be inconsistent with accepted clinical standards of care. We discuss philosophical-ethical and legal issues surrounding overriding PADs and offer analysis of the possible future of legal cases in which the question of overriding PADs and fiscal concerns may collide. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:385–94, 2006 Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) were intro-duced in the 1980s as ameans for psychiatric patients to retain choice and control over their own mental health treatment during periods of decisional inca-pacity.1–4 PADs provide two legal devices—menta