IntroductionBorderline personality disorder patients are often subjected to inpatient compulsory care due to suicidal behaviour. However, inpatient care is usually advised against as it can have detrimental effects, including increased suicidality.AimTo investigate what motives psychiatrists have for treating borderline personality disorder patients under compulsory care.Materials and MethodsA questionnaire survey was distributed to all psychiatrists and registrars in psychiatry working at mental health emergency units or inpatient wards in Sweden. The questionnaire contained questions with fixed response alternatives, with room for comments, (...) about the respondents’ motives for practising compulsory care of borderline personality disorder patients. The responses were analysed quantitatively with descriptive statistics, and comments were analysed with qualitative descriptive content analysis.ResultsThe psychiatrists’ views were divided on when it was justified to treat borderline personality disorder patients under compulsory care, as were their views on borderline personality disorder patients’ decision competence. When there was an assessed risk of harm, 53% were positive to compulsory care of decision-competent borderline personality disorder patients and another 31% because they considered the patients to be decision incompetent in such situations. Adding the risk of harm caused many respondents to alter their assessment of the patient from decision competent to decision incompetent.ConclusionThe large variations in doctors’ opinions indicate that the care of borderline personality disorder patients is arbitrary. Further, the assessed risk of harm increases the use of compulsory care, even though such care is advised against in clinical guidelines, has questionable legal support, and could lead to an increased suicide risk over time. (shrink)

Psychiatry today is mainly practised within a curative framework. However, many mental disorders are persistent and negatively affect quality of life as well as life expectancy. This tension between treatment goals and the actual illness trajectory has evoked a growing academic interest in ‘palliative psychiatry’, namely the application of a palliative care approach in patients with severe persistent mental illness. Recently, Trachsel et al presented a working definition of palliative psychiatry. This first official attempt to capture the concept is based (...) on WHO’s widely accepted definition of palliative care but modified and limited to include only severe persistent psychiatric illness. While this is a welcome step in the discussion on palliative care approaches in psychiatry, it also opens up for new questions. One of the most evident is whether psychiatry actually needs its own definition of palliative care or, put differently, whether there is something about mental disorders that differs so radically from other medical conditions that it calls for a separate definition. We acknowledge the need to discuss the goals of psychiatric care in patients with severe persistent psychiatric illness. However, we question whether a separate definition of palliative care exclusive to psychiatry is the right way to go. In this paper, we discuss why. (shrink)

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States and in many other parts of the world. As such, suicide is frequently framed as a medical and public health problem for which solutions are best recommended by medical and public health authorities. While, medicalized suicide prevention strategies often resonate with traditional Christian commitments to preserve life and to discourage suicide, there is little evidence to date that medical approaches to suicide risk-reduction decrease population rates of suicide. Further, by (...) treating suicide as a phenomenon that can be eliminated through technical managerial control, modern suicide prevention efforts construe suffering persons as carriers of risk best managed by standardized and often dehumanizing environments of care. This emphasis on the medical management of risk also erodes the clinician–patient relationship and inappropriately centers medical (e.g., systematic health screenings) rather than non-medical (e.g., access to housing) forms of response. Although, medicalized suicide prevention efforts should not be dismantled, those working to prevent suicide would do well to prioritize a positive commitment to human dignity and worth and to engage social and political systems beyond medicine and public health, while drawing on specific contributions that clinicians can offer. (shrink)