Rena Kurs

Many individuals who have mental disorders often report negative experiences of a distinctively epistemic sort, such as not being listened to, not being taken seriously, or not being considered credible because of their psychiatric conditions. In an attempt to articulate and interpret these reports we present Fricker’s concepts of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007, p. 1) and then focus on testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice as it applies to individuals with mental disorders. The clinical impact of these concepts on quality of care is discussed. Within the clinical domain, we contrast epistemic injustice with epistemic privilege and authority. We then argue that testimonial and hermeneutic injustices also affect individuals with mental disorders not only when communicating with their caregivers but also in the social context as they attempt to reintegrate into the general society and assume responsibilities as productive citizens. Following the trend of the movement of mental health care to the community, the testimonies of people with mental disorders should not be restricted to issues involving their own personal mental states.

OA Text is an independent open-access scientific publisher showcases innovative research and ideas aimed at improving health by linking research and practice to the benefit of society.

Objective: This study investigates the proportion of drug users among patients with mental disorders who attended the emergency department of one major psychiatric hospital in Northern Israel, the most frequent psychiatric diagnoses associated with drug use, and the impact of confirmed drug use on hospital admission. We hypothesized that the proportion of individuals with positive urine drug test results presenting at the psychiatric emergency department during the study period would be 20% to 30%. Methods: An unselected cohort of 2,019 adult patients who visited the emergency department of Sha'ar Menashe Mental Health Center, a university-affiliated government facility, was evaluated and underwent routine urine drug testing between April 2012 and February 2014. Clinical, demographic, and urine drug test data were collected from medical records and statistically analyzed, comparing diagnostic evaluation at admission and after discharge from either the emergency department or the hospital. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to identify the possible variables associated with drug use in this sample. Results: Urine drug test results showed that 194 of the 2,019 subjects (9.6%) had used a psychoactive substance before attending the emergency department. Among patients with positive urine drug test results, the majority (77.8%) used cannabis, 25.8% used opiates, 24.7% used ecstasy, and 5.2% used cocaine. Differences in the prevalence of positive urine drug test results between admitted and nonadmitted patients did not reach a statistically significant level. The frequency of positive urine drug test results across lifetime International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnoses was 27.2% for substance-related disorders, 4.8% for psychotic disorders, 4.2% for mood disorders, 11.0% for personality disorders, and 11.5% for nonpsychotic disorders. Both univariate and logistic regression analyses revealed that younger age (18–40), male sex, fewer years of education, single marital status, and ICD-10 diagnosis of substance-related, personality, and nonpsychotic disorders were indicators of higher likelihood of positive urine drug test findings. Conclusions: Results suggest that routine urine toxicology screening is not necessary in the psychiatric emergency department as an adjunct to a thorough psychiatric clinical examination. However, urine drug tests should be performed when the clinical evaluation cannot determine whether the mental disorder is the result of illicit drug use or clearly non–drug-related.

Participation of the mentally-ill in elections promotes integration into the community. In many countries, individuals with compromised mental incompetence who have legal guardians are denied the right to vote. In Israel, mental health consumers are eligible to vote. We evaluated the capacity of psychiatric inpatients with and without legal guardians to understand the nature and effect of voting. Fifty-six inpatients with/without legal guardians were recruited to the study. Participants completed the Competency AssessmentTool for Voting (CAT-V), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Mini-Mental State Exam. Cluster analysis determined voting capacity using CAT-V as a continuous variable. Subjects who scored >1.6 on the CAT-V (59%) had high capacity to vote. Subjects without guardians revealed significantly higher capacity to vote. Voting capacity positively correlated with cognitive state and negatively correlated with severity of illness. Among patients with legal guardians those who scored >1.6 on the CAT-V maintained the capacity to vote. The right to vote is an important basic right for individuals coping with mental disorders.However, it is important to evaluate the capacity to understand the voting process among individuals with mental disorders who have legal guardians. Thus, the integrity of the elections would be preserved by eliminating the risk of undue influence or manipulation of individuals who lack the capacity to understand the nature and meaning of voting, while preserving the right to vote for those with the capacity to do so, whether or not they have guardians.

In compliance with public health measures initiated by the Israel Ministry of Health following an outbreak of influenza, amantadine was administered to all patients in the psychogeriatric department of Lev Hasharon Mental Health Center to reduce transmission and illness severity in this susceptible population. To evaluate the potential beneficial effects of amantadine on elderly hospitalized patients with persistent schizophrenia. We conducted a retrospective case review of the treatment effects of amantadine on the mental, cognitive and clinical states of elderly chronic schizophrenic patients who received concomitant amantadine treatment and were routinely evaluated with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Mini Mental State Examination, and Sandoz Clinical Assessment Geriatric Scale. No significant differences before and after amantadine treatment were noted. Amantadine did not influence the mental, cognitive and clinical states of elderly schizophrenia patients and thus can be considered as an anti-influenza preventive measure for this population, when indicated.