Michael Bayrhammer-Savel
Martin Ortner2
Marie-Claire Van Hout
Arkadiusz Komorowski- 1Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 2Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption, Vienna, Austria
- 3Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
The fundamental right to equivalence of health care in prison settings encompasses the provision of medication to address mental health conditions. Considering the increased risk for self-harm among individuals dealing with depression, the limited effectiveness of conservative antidepressants is a major challenge in psychiatry. The high prevalence of suicidal tendencies within prison populations underscores the imperative for state-of-the-art pharmacological treatment to uphold adequate health care standards. Notably, the denial of access to effective medication could be deemed a violation of human rights of people living in prison according to international treaties, domestic law, and United Nations normative standards of detention. This article presents the authors’ perspective on the accessibility of ketamine treatment in prison settings, discussing psychiatric and legal considerations as well as current challenges in this context. Implementing novel psychopharmacological interventions may alleviate the distress experienced by individuals struggling with depressive symptoms and suicidality. At the same time, unprecedented treatment alternatives bring along potential issues, including limited understanding of long-term effects and the risk of abuse. Given the scarce data-availability, a pressing need exists for further research on the benefits and risks of ketamine treatment within prison populations.
1 Introduction
The global prison population is estimated to exceed 11.5 million, and people living in prison (PLP) commonly face challenges that impact their health, social reintegration, and life expectancy (1, 2). While elevated rates of communicable diseases result in higher mortality rates (3), a large part of the prison population is also affected by a psychiatric disorder (4, 5). Besides complex mental health conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorder (SUD), major depression appears to be particularly relevant (6, 7). Studies conducted in prisons show a prevalence of 35 - 38% for depressive disorders and a three to ninefold increase in suicide risk (8, 9), partly due to inadequate access to specialist treatment and environmental health stressors (10, 11). PLP represent a high-risk group, with reported rates of 18% and 31% for a lifetime history of self-harm and suicide attempts, respectively (12).
PLP are, in addition to the obvious restriction of their fundamental right to freedom, also exposed to potential violations of their right to physical and mental health as well as, in case of inadequate treatment of suicidality, their right to life. In order to address the health needs of those affected, penal authorities must strive for a level of care that matches the applicable standards in the general population (13, 14). The “principle of equivalent medical care” can be derived from a variety of human rights treaties, United Nations (UN) normative standards of detention, domestic legislation and policy, as well as international court decisions. Accordingly, novel treatment options may present an opportunity to provide adequate health care to a population typically underserved by the penal system. Considering the existing literature, we present a viewpoint on the potential access of prison populations to ketamine for the treatment of depression and suicidality.
1.1 The role of ketamine in psychiatry
In Art. 1, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) delineates disability as a physical or mental impairment, which significantly limits one or more essential life activities. Within the scope of chronic psychiatric disorders, this may include self-care, concentration, cognitive functions, social interactions, communication, and vocational engagement. Comparable to other mental health conditions, clinically significant depressive episodes should be treated through an interdisciplinary approach, including pharmacological treatment. Commonly utilized antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors, and other classes of medications such as tricyclic antidepressants (15). However, in up to 30% of the cases, individuals do not respond adequately to the initial treatment (16). While clinicians occasionally prescribe an augmentation therapy with antipsychotics or lithium to enhance efficacy in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse events and lithium exhibits a potential risk of hypothyroidism or kidney damage (17).
In line with the legal framework’s definition of a disability, individuals with TRD encounter noticeable functional impairment due to an insufficient response to antidepressant treatment. For such cases, the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine stands as a viable alternative, given its differing pharmacodynamic profile compared to conventional antidepressants. It is currently hypothesized that ketamine binding triggers diverse molecular cascades which induce synaptic plasticity (18). Significant antidepressant efficacy and persistent effects during treatment has been confirmed repeatedly, creating strong evidence for its use (19–21). Ketamine has also emerged as a promising treatment option for individuals with suicidal ideation due to its rapid-acting effect (22, 23). Given the genetic covariance between major depression and suicide attempts, ketamine may constitute a personalized treatment alternative for persons whose genetic characteristics suggest a higher risk for these conditions (24). Within the context of psychiatric care, recent studies have further indicated a therapeutic potential of ketamine for individuals dealing with trauma-related conditions such as PTSD (25). However, to our knowledge, there are no studies assessing the effects of ketamine treatment in prison settings. Although alternative interventions designed to reduce depressive symptoms and suicidality of PLP, such as group-based treatment, psychoeducational and peer support programs, as well as individual psychotherapy, are widely implemented, current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options are still insufficiently evaluated (26).
1.2 The principle of equivalence of care
The integration of scientific evidence into the penal system is vital, as correctional institutions are inherently bound by a moral and legal obligation to establish robust governance and effectively tackle health care issues. In its explanatory factsheet regarding Art. 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN specifies that “States have an obligation to prohibit and eliminate discrimination on all grounds and ensure equality to all in relation to access to health care and the underlying determinants of health” (27). The UN General Assembly Resolution United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules) states in Rule 24.1 that “prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community, and should have access to necessary health-care services free of charge without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status” (28). Likewise, the World Health Organization recognized the status of PLP as a disadvantaged group and agreed on the fact that it is a public health issue for states to ensure same standards of health care inside prisons and outside (29, 30). Even further reaching, the CRPD mandates that public entities need to enact reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures whenever these adjustments are essential to prevent discrimination rooted in disability (31).
Similar to the UN standards, the Council of Europe (CoE) recommendations European Prison Rules state that “all necessary medical, surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner” (32). In all countries that have acceded to the CoE, the strongest legislative sword is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Any person that claims to be violated in a right stipulated by the ECHR is permitted to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a chamber ruling, and the Committee of Ministers of the CoE is obligated to enforce the chamber’s decision. The ECtHR derives from Art. 2 ECHR (Protection of Life) the duty of member states to protect prisoners from suicide or self-harm (33). Furthermore, in Art. 3 ECHR (Torture and Inhumane Treatment), it is stipulated that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. One of the most relevant rulings of the ECtHR regarding the treatment of PLP is the 2013 grand chamber judgment Murray v. The Netherlands (34). While the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, a release from prison was held in prospect de jure, as long as the individual’s risk of reoffending was mitigated. However, since the applicant was not provided appropriate psychiatric treatment, Murray claimed he had no chance of being released de facto. The ECtHR followed his claim and ruled that The Netherlands had violated Art. 3 ECHR. The court pointed out that “states are under an obligation to provide detainees suffering from health problems – including mental health problems – with appropriate medical care”. Another widely known example of where the ECtHR chamber recognized a violation of Art. 3 ECHR by a member state is the 2016 judgment Wenner v. Germany (35). In this case, the ECtHR reiterated the principle of equivalence of care, under which prisoners were entitled to medical treatment in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community.
Already in 1976, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued the landmark decision Estelle v. Gamble (36), finding a violation of the Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) due to “deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury” (37). This ruling also set the legal foundation for the right to receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT) within prison settings in the US. Among others, the judicial rulings Pesce v. Coppinger (38), Smith v. Aroostook County (39), and Kortlever v. Whatcom County (40) confirmed, that OAT must be offered, as long as it is available to the general public as well. Considering the legal implications of failing to do so, future debate needs to address the implementation of novel pharmacological treatments in prisons.
1.3 Methodological considerations
Introducing novel treatments to PLP encompass methodological and ethical challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (7, 41). It is crucial to acknowledge that PLP inherently encounter vulnerable circumstances, often compounded by power differentials (42). Voluntariness and individual autonomy can be compromised by institutional pressure, even if subliminal, exemplified by unethical historical research in prison settings (43, 44). Consequently, studies conducted in prisons are essential to explore the specific situation and needs of PLP (45).
Balancing the risk of harm with potential benefits, PLP should be granted access to participation in clinical and other research under the principle of equivalence of care (46, 47). Despite system barriers and, in some cases, a lower health literacy of prison populations (48), the capacity to provide informed consent as a research participant is not universally precluded (49). In addition to being carefully scrutinized by an ethical review committee, studies involving prison populations should also adhere to general research guidelines. International principles governing the conduct of health research include the Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association (50) as well as the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans (51) and Epidemiological Studies (52) by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Comparable to the general population, treatment recommendations for PLP should be based on scientific evidence, such as double-blind randomized controlled trials alongside comprehensive meta-analytical findings. However, the fact that PLP are insufficiently represented in health research complicates data-driven decision-making (3, 45). Studies in prisons are often hampered by discontinuity of care and tight financial constraints (53, 54), which limits longitudinal research on the effectiveness of clinical interventions.
2 Discussion
While penal authorities are legally compelled to provide treatment when it is available to the general public as well, PLP commonly face disparities in access to mental health care (4, 6, 13). Although restrictive measures have been linked to the exacerbation of self-inflicted harm as well as psychological distress, penal authorities often deploy solitary confinement in response to acute crises (55, 56). Individuals experiencing suicidal ideation may therefore benefit from novel treatment options. There has been only gradual progress in the provision of state-of-the-art treatment within prison settings. E.g., medication prescription patterns for a given pathology still differ between prison and community settings (57), and ketamine treatment has come to the authors’ attention as an example of this discrepancy. However, as the clinician’s perspective often overlooks necessary adjustments for organizing health care within the prison environment, reasonable concerns about the role of ketamine for PLP necessitate further considerations.
Balancing the goal of offering adequate health care with the need to prevent disruptive behaviors can create conflicts of interest for medical professionals. Given inconsistent findings in prisons, adherence to guidelines and implementation of periodic monitoring due to the risk of adverse effects is considered crucial (58). Although benzodiazepines should not be used as a long-term treatment due to their side effects including cognitive impairment and dependence, prison populations frequently receive this medication with the intention of bridging the onset of action of antidepressants and antipsychotics (57). Regarding schizophrenia, the implications of equivalent medical care extend to the administration of clozapine due to its unparalleled effectiveness (59). The use of clozapine among individuals with treatment resistant schizophrenia shows an overall response rate of approximately 40% in the general community (60). While empirical data is scarce, more frequent prescriptions of clozapine result in significant reductions of disciplinary measures and segregation in prisons (61). In contrast, medical treatment of ADHD in forensic settings is still controversially discussed (62), even though ADHD is estimated to affect at least 20% of PLP (63). While prior randomized controlled trials have provided encouraging results (64), a recent study has shown no short-term effects of methylphenidate in male PLP (65). Similarly, the use of OAT in prisons remains a contentious issue in many countries, although research suggests that it is associated with a reduction in overall mortality and drug-related poisonings following release (66). Using OAT within the domain of opioid use disorder is not only broad consensus in the scientific community, but also a legal imperative (67, 68). Turning to the domain of depression, odds-ratios between 1.37 and 2.13 are estimated for pharmacological treatments in the general population (69). While reported effect sizes for clinical interventions in prisons range between 0.17 and 1.41, the effectiveness of antidepressants is still insufficiently studied in PLP (70). In the context of non-pharmacological treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment and mindfulness-based interventions are commonly recommended in prison settings (4, 71). However, these treatment programs have not demonstrated superior effects compared to other psychological therapies. It should be taken into consideration that PLP commonly display heightened levels of psychopathology alongside increased instances of comorbidity, complicating the evaluation of clinical interventions. Further reasons for the slow advances in adoption of novel treatment options relate to the planning efforts of research studies, the administration of psychotropic medication in prison environments, and financial constraints (8, 9, 45, 54).
While there are no studies investigating ketamine specifically, awareness regarding the potential abuse and adverse effects holds significant importance (72, 73). Clinicians need to address the high-risk behaviors linked to prison populations such as drug exchange and injection, leading to an elevated risk of symptom exaggeration in order to gain access to the medication. Compared to the general population, PLP tend to have a higher rate of SUD, with a prevalence ranging between 10 and 50% (6, 74). This shows the utmost importance of careful consideration of pharmacological treatment alternatives for TRD and suicidality. Notably, substance abuse within the prison environment is known for multiple pharmaceuticals such as benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids that are routinely prescribed during acute crises (57). Thus, it is prudent to limit access and require ketamine administration be closely supervised and monitored in a controlled setting by qualified medical personnel. With regard to ketamine, a nasal spray for application of esketamine, the S(+) enantiomer of ketamine, has recently been approved for therapeutic use in several countries, minimizing the risk of substance misuse and side effects such as dissociation (75, 76). Although there is strong evidence supporting the positive benefit related to suicide ideation for intravenous racemic ketamine, studies investigating intranasal esketamine did not yet show the same favorable profile (77, 78). Given the current lack of empirical evidence, it therefore seems too early to draw conclusions regarding potential effects of esketamine in prison settings.
Regarding future directions, examining how ketamine treatment aligns with established international legal precedents seems reasonable. In the past, the ECtHR has repeatedly dealt with complaints from PLP who brought forward issues related to inadequate diagnoses and treatments (34, 35). The ECtHR generally holds that states have an obligation to ascertain the health condition of prisoners through examinations and to promptly provide them with appropriate treatments when needed (79). I.e., “the Court considers that, for the purposes of Art. 3 of the Convention, it is not sufficient for the detainee to be examined and diagnosed. To safeguard the health of the prisoner, it is essential that therapy corresponding to the established diagnosis and appropriate medical supervision be carried out” (80). Denying access to ketamine treatment while exclusively offering conventional antidepressants may further constitute a form of discrimination based on disability as defined by the CRPD, specifically targeting individuals with TRD. To administer ketamine within prisons wherever indicated is not only in line with current medical standards but, in our opinion, also coincides with the principle of equivalence.
In conclusion, the persistent disregard for research on prison health carries substantial consequences for mortality rates, disease prevention, and the fundamental right to health. It is imperative to consider not only the legal dimensions, as expounded upon here, but also the medical implications (59, 67). The scarcity of studies exploring disorder-specific pharmacological interventions within the prison environment can be attributed to methodological complexities, such as monitoring follow-up and selecting appropriate outcome measures (46, 53). In view of the fact that penal authorities need to offer even better health services than those available to the general population to reach comparable health outcomes (14, 66), we advocate the investigation of ketamine treatment for PLP dealing with depression and suicidal ideation under controlled conditions. The denial of access to effective evidenced-based medication can potentially lead to a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and, in the case of suicide, to a violation of the most fundamental basic right, the right to life.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MB-S: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MO: Writing – review & editing. M-CH: Writing – review & editing. AK: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Koch M, Dvorak A, Hobersdorfer M, Yeghiazaryan L, Rabl U, Komorowski A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychosocial rehabilitation of forensic psychiatric patients in Austria. Int J Law Psychiatry. (2023) 88:101889. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2023.101889
2. Penal Reform International. Global prison trends 2023 (2023). Available online at: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GPT-2023.pdf (Accessed 2 October 2023).
3. McLeod KE, Butler A, Young JT, Southalan L, Borschmann R, Sturup-Toft S, et al. Global prison health care governance and health equity: A critical lack of evidence. Am J Public Health. (2020) 110:303–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305465
4. Franke I, Vogel T, Eher R, Dudeck M. Prison mental healthcare: recent developments and future challenges. Curr Opin Psychiatry. (2019) 32:342–7. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000504
5. WHO Europe. Status Report on prison health in the WHO European region (2023). Available online at: www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289058674 (Accessed 2 October 2023).
6. Fazel S, Yoon IA, Hayes AJ. Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. (2017) 112:1725–39. doi: 10.1111/add.13877
7. Baranyi G, Scholl C, Fazel S, Patel V, Priebe S, Mundt AP. Severe mental illness and substance use disorders in prisoners in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies. Lancet Global Health. (2019) 7:e461–71. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30539-4
8. Bedaso A, Ayalew M, Mekonnen N, Duko B. Global estimates of the prevalence of depression among prisoners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression Res Treat. (2020) 2020:3695209. doi: 10.1155/2020/3695209
9. Fazel S, Ramesh T, Hawton K. Suicide in prisons: an international study of prevalence and contributory factors. Lancet Psychiatry. (2017) 4:946–52. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30430-3
10. Bukten A, Stavseth MR. Suicide in prison and after release: a 17-year national cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. (2021) 36:1075–83. doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00782-0
11. Rogan M. Human rights approaches to suicide in prison: implications for policy, practice and research. Health Justice. (2018) 6:15. doi: 10.1186/s40352-018-0075-4
12. Butler A, Young JT, Kinner SA, Borschmann R. Self-harm and suicidal behaviour among incarcerated adults in the Australian Capital Territory. Health justice. (2018) 6:1–6. doi: 10.1186/s40352-018-0071-8
13. Niveau G. Relevance and limits of the principle of “equivalence of care” in prison medicine. J Med ethics. (2007) 33:610–3. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018077
14. Lines R. From equivalence of standards to equivalence of objectives: The entitlement of prisoners to health care standards higher than those outside prisons. Int J Prisoner Health. (2006) 2:269–80. doi: 10.1080/17449200601069676
15. Bauer M, Severus E, Möller HJ, Young AH. Pharmacological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders: summary of WFSBP guidelines. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. (2017) 21:166–76. doi: 10.1080/13651501.2017.1306082
16. Kverno KS, Mangano E. Treatment-resistant depression: approaches to treatment. J psychosocial Nurs Ment Health Serv. (2021) 59:7–11. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20210816-01
17. Dold M, Bartova L, Kautzky A, Serretti A, Porcelli S, Souery D, et al. Clinical factors associated with augmentation treatment with second-generation antipsychotics and lithium in major depression–Results from a European multicenter study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. (2018) 28:1305–13. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.10.003
18. Zanos P, Brown KA, Georgiou P, Yuan P, Zarate CA Jr, Thompson SM, et al. NMDA receptor activation-dependent antidepressant-relevant behavioral and synaptic actions of ketamine. J Neurosci. (2023) 43:1038–50. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1316-22.2022
19. Alnefeesi Y, Chen-Li D, Krane E, Jawad MY, Rodrigues NB, Ceban F, et al. Real-world effectiveness of ketamine in treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review & meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. (2022) 151:693–709. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.04.037
20. Ionescu DF, Fu DJ, Qiu X, Lane R, Lim P, Kasper S, et al. Esketamine nasal spray for rapid reduction of depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicide ideation with intent: results of a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study (ASPIRE II). Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. (2021) 24:22–31. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa068
21. Li W, Zhou Y, Liu W, Wang C, Lan X, Zhang Z, et al. Long-term outcomes of repeated ketamine infusions in patients with unipolar and bipolar depression: A naturalistic follow-up study. J Affect Disord. (2022) 300:172–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.084
22. Su TP, Li CT, Lin WC, Wu HJ, Tsai SJ, Bai YM, et al. A randomized, double-blind, midazolam-controlled trial of low-dose ketamine infusion in patients with treatment-resistant depression and prominent suicidal ideation. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. (2023) 26:331–9. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyad014
23. Abbar M, Demattei C, El-Hage W, Llorca PM, Samalin L, Demaricourt P, et al. Ketamine for the acute treatment of severe suicidal ideation: double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ. (2022) 376:e067194. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067194
24. Fanelli G, Sokolowski M, Wasserman D, European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Network on Suicide Research and Prevention, Kasper S, Zohar J, et al. Polygenic risk scores for neuropsychiatric, inflammatory, and cardio-metabolic traits highlight possible genetic overlap with suicide attempt and treatment-emergent suicidal ideation. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. (2022) 189:74–85. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32891
25. Hartelius G, Muscat SA, Bartova L. Bridging the gap: an interdisciplinary perspective on ketamine in psychiatric disorders. Front Psychiatry. (2023) 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1246891
26. Carter A, Butler A, Willoughby M, Janca E, Kinner SA, Southalan L, et al. Interventions to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviours among people in contact with the criminal justice system: A global systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. (2022) 44:101266. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101266
27. The right to health, UN factsheet no31 on art. 25 UDHR . Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2023).
28. Rule 24.1 UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules): resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 8 January 2016, A/RES/70/175. Available online at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf (Accessed September 27, 2023).
29. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Trenčín statement on prisons and mental health (Oct. 18, 2007) (Accessed October 4, 2023). Available from: iris.who.int/handle/10665/108575.
30. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Conclusions of the WHO international meeting on prisons and health Lisbon 2017 (Feb. 28, 2018). Available online at: https://rm.coe.int/final-version-lisbon-conclusions/16807af4b1 (Accessed September 22, 2023).
31. Article 5 convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities (Accessed October 3, 2023).
32. Part III 40.5 european prison rules . Available online at: https://rm.coe.int/european-prison-rules-978-92-871-5982-3/16806ab9ae (Accessed September 26, 2023).
33. RENOLDE v. FRANCE No. 5608/05 (ECtHR, 16 October 2008); DE DONDER and DE CLIPPEL v. BELGIUM No. 8595/06 (ECtHR, 6 December 2011); CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES on behalf of VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA No. 47848/08 (ECtHR, 14 July 2014); FERNANDES DE OLIVEIRA v. PORTUGAL No. 78103/14 (ECtHR, 28 March 2017).
37. Posner MJ. The Estelle medical professional judgment standard: the right of those in state custody to receive high-cost medical treatments. Am J Law Med. (1992) 18:347–68. doi: 10.1017/S0098858800007334
41. Ako T, Plugge E, Mhlanga-Gunda R, Van Hout MC. Ethical guidance for health research in prisons in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Public Health. (2020) 186:217–27. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.008
42. Dalen K, Jones LØ. Ethical monitoring: conducting research in a prison setting. Res Ethics. (2010) 6:10–6. doi: 10.1177/174701611000600103
43. Knight K, Flynn PM. Clinical trials involving prisoners: a bioethical perspective. Clin Invest. (2012) 2:1147–9. doi: 10.4155/cli.12.123
44. Lerner BH. Subjects or objects? Prisoners and human experimentation. N Engl J Med. (2007) 356:1806–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068280
45. Perrett SE, Gray BJ, Brooks NJ. Exploring health and wellbeing in prison: A peer research approach. Int J Prisoner Health. (2020) 16:78–92. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-03-2019-0019
46. Ahalt C, Haney C, Kinner S, Williams B. Balancing the rights to protection and participation: a call for expanded access to ethically conducted correctional health research. J Gen Internal Med. (2018) 33:764–8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4318-9
47. Christopher PP, Stein MD, Johnson JE, Rich JD, Friedmann PD, Clarke J, et al. Exploitation of prisoners in clinical research: perceptions of study participants. IRB. (2016) 38:7–12.
48. Gill S, Zeki R, Kaye S, Zingirlis P, Archer V, Lewandowski A, et al. Health literacy strengths and challenges of people in New South Wales prisons: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health. (2023) 23:1520. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16464-3
49. Baggio S, Gétaz L, Giraudier L, Tirode L, Urrutxi M, Carboni S, et al. Comparison of audiovisual and paper-based materials for 1-time informed consent for research in prison: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. (2022) 5:e2235888–e2235888. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35888
50. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. (2013) 310:2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
51. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 4th ed. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS (2016).
52. Susan R. International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies: by the council for international organizations of medical sciences (CIOMS). Am J Epidemiol. (2009) 170:1451–2. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp334
53. Browne CC, Korobanova D, Chemjong P, Harris AWF, Glozier N, Basson J, et al. Continuity of mental health care during the transition from prison to the community following brief periods of imprisonment. Front Psychiatry. (2022) 13:934837. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.934837
54. Simpson PL, Guthrie J, Jones J, Butler T. Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: Results of citizens’ juries in Australian prisons. Lancet Public Health. (2021) 6:e771–9. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00050-5
55. Dellazizzo L, Luigi M, Giguère CÉ, Goulet MH, Dumais A. Is mental illness associated with placement into solitary confinement in correctional settings? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2020) 29:576–89. doi: 10.1111/inm.12733
56. Wright KA, Young JT, Matekel CG, Infante AA, Gifford FE, Meyers TJ, et al. Solitary confinement and the well-being of people in prison. Soc Sci Med. (2023), 116224:335. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116224
57. Hassan L, Senior J, Frisher M, Edge D, Shaw J. A comparison of psychotropic medication prescribing patterns in East of England prisons and the general population. J Psychopharmacol. (2014) 28:357–62. doi: 10.1177/0269881114523863
58. Pelizza L, Maestri D, Paulillo G, Pellegrini P. Prevalence and appropriateness of antipsychotic prescribing in an italian prison: is everything always really overprescribed? J Clin Psychopharmacol. (2022) 42:31–6. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001495
59. Zarzar TR, Williams JB, Pruette ME, Sheitman BB. A legal right to clozapine therapy for incarcerated individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv. (2021) 72:482–4. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000845
60. Siskind D, Siskind V, Kisely S. Clozapine response rates among people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: data from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr. (2017) 62:772–7. doi: 10.1177/0706743717718167
61. Pruette ME, Zarzar TR, Sheitman BB. Expanding clozapine use in state prisons: a review of the North Carolina experience. J correctional Health Care. (2023) 29:109–14. doi: 10.1089/jchc.21.06.0059
62. Byrne C, Guenter D. Treatments for ADHD in adults in jails, prisons and correctional settings: a scoping review of the literature. Health justice. (2023) 11:36. doi: 10.1186/s40352-023-00234-9
63. Faraone SV, Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zheng Y, Biederman J, Bellgrove MA, et al. The World Federation of ADHD international consensus statement: 208 evidence-based conclusions about the disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2021) 128:789–818. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022
64. Ginsberg Y, Lindefors N. Methylphenidate treatment of adult male prison inmates with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with open-label extension. Br J Psychiatry. (2012) 200:68–73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.092940
65. Asherson PJ, Johansson L, Holland R, Bedding M, Forrester A, Giannulli L, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the short-term effects of osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate on symptoms and behavioural outcomes in young male prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: CIAO-II study. Br J psychiatry: J Ment Sci. (2023) 222:7–17. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2022.77
66. Malta M, Varatharajan T, Russell C, Pang M, Bonato S, Fischer B. Opioid-related treatment, interventions, and outcomes among incarcerated persons: A systematic review. PloS Med. (2019) 16:e1003002. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003002
67. Wakeman SE. Why it’s inappropriate not to treat incarcerated patients with opioid agonist therapy. AMA J ethics. (2017) 19:922–30. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.9.stas1-1709
68. Strang J, Volkow ND, Degenhardt L, Hickman M, Johnson K, Koob GF, et al. Opioid use disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2020) 6:3. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0137-5
69. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet (London England). (2018) 391:1357–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7
70. Leigh-Hunt N, Perry A. A systematic review of interventions for anxiety, depression, and PTSD in adult offenders. Int J offender Ther Comp criminol. (2015) 59:701–25. doi: 10.1177/0306624X13519241
71. Yoon IA, Slade K, Fazel S. Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J consulting Clin Psychol. (2017) 85:783. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000214
72. Van Dyken E, Lai FY, Thai PK, Ort C, Bruno R, Hall W, et al. Challenges and opportunities in using wastewater analysis to measure drug use in a small prison facility. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2016) 35:138–47. doi: 10.1111/dar.12156
73. Zhang MW, Harris KM, Ho RC. Is off-label repeat prescription of ketamine as a rapid antidepressant safe? Controversies, ethical concerns, and legal implications. BMC Med Ethics. (2016) 14:17. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0087-3
74. Montanari L, Royuela L, Mazzilli S, Vandam L, Alvarez E, Llorens N, et al. Prevalence of drug use before and during imprisonment in seven European countries (2014–2018). J Community Psychol. (2023) 1–16. doi: 10.1002/jcop.23053
75. Alario AA, Niciu MJ. (Es) ketamine for suicidal ideation and behavior: clinical efficacy. Chronic Stress. (2022) 6:24705470221128017. doi: 10.1177/24705470221128017
76. Canuso CM, Singh JB, Fedgchin M, Alphs L, Lane R, Lim P, et al. Efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine for the rapid reduction of symptoms of depression and suicidality in patients at imminent risk for suicide: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. (2018) 175:620–30. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17060720
77. Hochschild A, Grunebaum MF, Mann JJ. The rapid anti-suicidal ideation effect of ketamine: a systematic review. Prev Med. (2021) 152:106524. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106524
78. Jollant F, Colle R, Nguyen TML, Corruble E, Gardier AM, Walter M, et al. Ketamine and esketamine in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. (2023) 13:20451253231151327. doi: 10.1177/20451253231151327
Keywords: psychiatry, prison, human rights, mental health, ketamine, suicidality, treatment resistant depression
Citation: Bayrhammer-Savel M, Ortner M, Van Hout M-C and Komorowski A (2024) Psychiatric and legal considerations for ketamine treatment within prison settings. Front. Psychiatry 15:1316108. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1316108
Received: 10 October 2023; Accepted: 02 April 2024;
Published: 18 April 2024.
Edited by:
Sherry-Anne Muscat, Alberta Hospital Edmonton, CanadaReviewed by:
Giuseppe Fanelli, University of Bologna, ItalyCopyright © 2024 Bayrhammer-Savel, Ortner, Van Hout and Komorowski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Arkadiusz Komorowski, YXJrYWRpdXN6LmtvbW9yb3dza2lAbWVkdW5pd2llbi5hYy5hdA==