Patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are overrepresented in compulsory inpatient care for suicide-protective reasons. Still, much evidence indicates negative effects of such care, including increased suicide risk. Clinical guidelines are contradictory, leaving clinicians with difficult ethical dilemmas when deciding on compulsory care. In this study, we analyse the arguments most commonly used in favour of compulsory care of BPD patients, to find out in what situations such care is ethically justified. The aim is to guide clinicians when deciding on (...) compulsory care for BPD patients and reduce the use of potentially harmful care. The arguments analysed are (a) the patients lack decision competence, (b) the patients lack authenticity, (c) compulsory care saves the patient from suicide, (d) compulsory care safeguards against litigation, complaints, or doctor's anxiety, (e) compulsory care is a practical solution in emergencies, and (f) it is better for the caregiver to ‘err on the safe side’. We conclude that compulsory care is not ethically justified in most cases unless the clinician has probable reason to believe that the patient lacks decision capacity by suffering from a severe mental co-morbidity and stands to benefit from such care. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 86-88.

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 94-96.

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 90-92.

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 93-94.

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 84-86.

In response to the increasing number of mentally ill people experiencing homelessness, some policy‐makers have called for the expanded use of involuntary commitment, even for individuals who are not engaging in behaviors that are immediately life‐threatening. Yet there is no evidence that involuntary commitment offers long‐term benefits, and significant reasons to believe that expanding the practice will cause harm. In addition, these proposals ignore research showing that most people with mental illness have the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. (...) Rather than expanding the use of involuntary commitment, policy‐makers should support approaches proven to decrease the prevalence of homelessness, such as supportive housing. In addition, states should reevaluate their commitment standards for persons who pose no risk of harm to others. One promising approach is Northern Ireland's Mental Health Capacity Act of 2016, which establishes a uniform standard for imposing nonconsensual health care interventions, without any distinction between mental illnesses and other conditions in which capacity might be compromised. (shrink)

Suicide is considered a global public health issue and compulsory admission is a commonly used measure to prevent suicide. However, the practice has been criticised since several studies indicate that the measure lacks empirical support and may even increase suicide risk. This paper investigates whether the practice has enough empirical support to be considered proportionate. To that end, arguments supporting compulsory admission as a suicide-preventive measure for most suicidal patients are scrutinized. The ethical point of departure is that the expected (...) benefits of compulsory admission should outweigh the potential harms of the measure to be proportionate and defensible. It is concluded that, for most suicidal patients, suicide-preventive compulsory admission cannot be presumed to be a proportionate measure. To be so, the expected medical benefits of the measure should be greater than the potential increase in suicide risk and other harms that compulsory admission could entail. Instead of using compulsory admission as a suicide-preventive measure, extra safety measures may be needed during and after compulsory admission to prevent the risk of hospitalisation-induced suicide. (shrink)