<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dahlberg, Jørgen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Øverstad, Siri</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dahl, Vegard</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coman, Alina</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Autonomy and consent assessment for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). A retrospective study of medical records</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International Journal of Law and Psychiatry</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Autonomi</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">autonomy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Consent</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ECT</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samtykke</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samtykkekompetanse</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">06/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252721000455?via%3Dihub</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">77</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The Norwegian Mental Health Act allows involuntary treatment for patients who lack consent capacity, however&lt;br /&gt;it allows only administration of pharmaceutical treatment and nutrition and not ECT. In lack of specific regulations,&lt;br /&gt;the legal access to ECT without valid consent has been grounded on the general rule of necessity in the&lt;br /&gt;Norwegian Penal code. This restriction and lack of legal regulation has implications for patients&amp;#39; rights and legal&lt;br /&gt;security.&lt;br /&gt;The study&amp;#39;s aim was to assess the documented consent provided by patients for electroconvulsive therapy&lt;br /&gt;(ECT), whether ECT was administered without valid consent or under coercion, and the documented reasons, and&lt;br /&gt;ultimately compare practice with the legal requirements. We analysed systematically all the relevant medical&lt;br /&gt;records for hospitalised patients and outpatients receiving ECT during 2011&amp;ndash;2016. We categorized data from&lt;br /&gt;these two groups into seven defined categories describing the attitude and quality of the consents to the ECT (or&lt;br /&gt;lack thereof).&lt;br /&gt;378 patients received 498 ECT series&amp;acute;. The noted consents varied from treatment based on request (54 treatments),&lt;br /&gt;consent upon recommendation (209 treatments), consent after hesitation (88 treatments), consent&lt;br /&gt;presumed or noted without specification (114 treatments), to no consent (21 treatments) whereof the majority&lt;br /&gt;with documented coercion applied (19 treatments). All cases of ECT without consent referred to a &amp;ldquo;plea of necessity&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;The remaining treatments (12) lacked notifications specifying the consent (or attitude) expressed.&lt;br /&gt;Specific notes on the patient&amp;#39;s capacity to consent for the respective ECT were generally lacking.&lt;br /&gt;This study indicates a large spread in patients&amp;acute; acceptance and valid consent to ECT. The main reason for&lt;br /&gt;administering ECT without consent and/or against patients&amp;#39; will was for life-saving reasons. Such treatments&lt;br /&gt;were justified legal under a plea of necessity in the Penal Code or lacked noted legal justification. The legal&lt;br /&gt;vacuum for ECT without a valid consent needs to be addressed as this kind of disputed treatment is used in some&lt;br /&gt;cases.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">etikk</style></label></record></records></xml>