Abstract

This paper is a critique of a paper by Robert Lipkin [1]. Arguments for the following claims are put forward: (1) that what is essential to the psychiatric relationship is what we want it to be for utilitarian reasons; (2) it would not be to our advantage to allow the medicalization of morality; (3) what we should expect from the psychiatrist is prudential advice, not moral advice, and that Lipkin has a confused view about the relationship between these two areas; and (4) we should not allow the psychiatrist to restrict individuals on moral grounds, but only on public safety grounds.