Kants morele ontologie: historische oorsprong en systematische betekenis

This study is concerned with the historical background and systematic meaning of Kant’s moral ontology. Although the importance of this theme for an adequate understanding of Kant’s philosophy stands beyond doubt, it has received only the scantest attention. Yet, the aim of this dissertation is not just to fill a gap in the existing literature, but also to make a new and well-argued contribution to the interpretation of Kant’s ethics. As contrasted with the “classical” reading, which makes up for the identification of Kantian moral theory with the doctrine of the categorical imperative, the present interpretation emphasizes the phenomenon of concrete moral experience, that has been marked in the second Critique as a “fact of reason”. Our operative assumption is that the distinction between the conception of the specific practical character of moral experience and the formal doctrine of the categorical imperative can be reduced to a more basic distinction, namely the contrast between an ontological and a transcendental way of viewing reality. Thus, the resolution of the conflict between ontology and transcendental philosophy, that defines the inner development of Kant’s thinking, becomes of central significance for the understanding of his moral theory. Our analysis shows that the pre-critical ontology, while losing its central function in the critical period, acquires a new and dominating position in the post-critical writings. The outcome of this reconstruction is twofold. Not only can the traditional interpre¬tation of Kantian ethics no longer be upheld, but at the same time a strong case can be made for the concept of concrete moral experience as the central tenet of Kant’s mature ethical thinking

Money for Medication : Financial incentives for improving antipsychotic medication adherence in patients with psychotic disorders

_Background_ Provision of financial incentives is a promising intervention for improving adherence in patients taking antipsychotic medication. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of this intervention for improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication in patients with psychotic disorders, irrespective of their previous compliance. _Methods_ We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at three mental health-care institutions in secondary psychiatric care services in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18–65 years, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, had been prescribed antipsychotic depot medication or had an indication to start using depot medication, and were participating in outpatient treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with a block size of four, to receive 12 months of either treatment as usual plus a financial reward for each depot of medication received (€30 per month if fully compliant; intervention group) or treatment as usual alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by treatment site and suspected prognostic factors: sex, comorbid substance-use disorder (absent vs present), and compliance with antipsychotic medication in the 4 months before baseline (<50% vs ≥50%). Patients, clinicians, interviewers, and research assistants were masked to group allocation before, but not after, group assignment. The primary outcome was the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), defined as the number of depots of antipsychotic medication received divided by the total number of depots of antipsychotic medication prescribed during the 12 month intervention period. Patients were followed up for 6 months, during which time no monetary rewards were offered for taking antipsychotic medication. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2350. _Findings_ Between May 21, 2010, and Oct 15, 2014, we randomly assigned 169 patients to the intervention group (n=84) or the control group (n=85). Primary outcome data were available for 155 (92%) patients. At baseline, the mean MPR was 76·0% (SD 28·2%) in the intervention group versus 77·9% (28·5%) in the control group. At 12 months, the mean MPR was higher in the intervention group (94·3% [SD 11·3%]) than in the control group (80·3% [19·1%]), with an adjusted difference of 14·9% (95% CI 8·9–20·9%; p<0·0001). This difference was maintained throughout the 6 month follow-up period: mean MPR of 86·6% (SD 22·2%) in the intervention group versus 76·0% (22·7%) in the control group (adjusted difference 6·5%, 95% CI 2·0–10·9; p=0·047). _Interpretation_ Financial incentives are an effective way of improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication among patients with psychotic disorders. Further research is needed to study the long-term effects of this intervention

Ethical acceptability of offering financial incentives for taking antipsychotic depot medication: Patients' and clinicians' perspectives after a 12-month randomized controlled trial

Background: A randomized controlled trial 'Money for Medication'(M4M) was conducted in which patients were offered financial incentives for taking antipsychotic depot medication. This study assessed the attitudes and ethical considerations of patients and clinicians who participated in this trial. Methods: Three mental healthcare institutions in secondary psychiatric care in the Netherlands participated in this study. Patients (n = 169), 18-65 years, diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or another psychotic disorder who had been prescribed antipsychotic depot medication, were randomly assigned to receive 12 months of either treatment as usual plus a financial reward for each depot of medication received (intervention group) or treatment as usual alone (control group). Structured questionnaires were administered after the 12-month intervention period. Data were available for 133 patients (69 control and 64 intervention) and for 97 clinicians. Results: Patients (88%) and clinicians (81%) indicated that financial incentives were a good approach to improve medication adherence. Ethical concerns were categorized according to the four-principles approach (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice). Patients and clinicians alike mentioned various advantages of M4M in clinical practice, such as increased medication adherence and improved illness insight; but also disadvantages such as reduced intrinsic motivation, loss of autonomy and feelings of dependence. Conclusions: Overall, patients evaluated financial incentives as an effective method of improving medication adherence and were willing to accept this reward during clinical treatment. Clinicians were also positive about the use of this intervention in daily practice. Ethical concerns are discussed in terms of patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. We conclude that this intervention is ethically acceptable under certain conditions, and that further research is necessary to clarify issues of benefit, motivation and the preferred size and duration of the incentive. Trial registration: Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2350

Depot-medication compliance for patients with psychotic disorders: The importance of illness insight and treatment motivation

Background: Noncompliance is a major problem for patients with a psychotic disorder. Two important risk factors for noncompliance that have a severe negative impact on treatment outcomes are impaired illness insight and lack of motivation. Our cross-sectional study explored how they are related to each other and their compliance with depot medication. Methods: Interviews were conducted in 169 outpatients with a psychotic disorder taking depot medication. Four patient groups were defined based on low or high illness insight and on low or high motivation. The associations between depot-medication compliance, motivation, and insight were illustrated using generalized linear models. Results: Generalized linear model showed a significant interaction effect between motivation and insight. Patients with poor insight and high motivation for treatment were more compliant (94%) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.821, 3.489) with their depot medication than patients with poor insight and low motivation (61%) (95% CI: 0.288, 0.615). Patients with both insight and high motivation for treatment were less compliant (73%) (95% CI: 0.719, 1.315) than those with poor insight and high motivation. Conclusion: Motivation for treatment was more strongly associated with depot-medication compliance than with illness insight. Being motivated to take medication, whether to get better or for other reasons, may be a more important factor than having illness insight in terms of improving depot-medication compliance. Possible implications for clinical practice are discusse