Assisted suicide and the discrimination argument: Can people with mental illness fulfill beneficence- and autonomy-based eligibility criteria?

According to the "discrimination argument," it would be discriminatory and hence impermissible to categorically exclude people with mental illness (PMI) from access to assisted suicide (AS) if AS is accessible to people with somatic illnesses. In objection to this, it could be argued that excluding PMI is not discriminatory, but rather based on their inability to meet certain eligibility criteria for AS. Which criteria are deemed necessary depends on the approach taken to justifying AS. In this article, we describe two distinct ethical approaches to justifying AS and the eligibility criteria they entail and examine whether PMI can fulfill these criteria. A widespread "joint" approach based on beneficence and autonomy assumes that AS is justified when it alleviates the severe and irremediable suffering of a person who autonomously requests AS. An alternative, exclusively autonomy-based approach assumes that providing AS is justified when a person's request is autonomous, regardless of whether AS is in her best interests. The latter approach underlies an important judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court from 2020. We argue that PMI can in principle fulfill both beneficence- and autonomy-based eligibility criteria for AS, and that a blanket exclusion of all PMI from AS is thus discriminatory on either approach. However, depending on which approach is taken, there are differences regarding the subgroups of PMI that would be eligible for AS. Whether the exclusion of specific PMI is discriminatory therefore depends on how we understand and justify AS.

Self-binding directives in psychiatric practice: a systematic review of reasons.

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are an ethically controversial type of advance decision making involving advance requests for involuntary treatment. This study systematically reviewed the academic literature on psychiatric SBDs to elucidate reasons for and against their use in psychiatric practice. Full-text articles were thematically analysed within the international, interdisciplinary authorship team to produce a hierarchy of reasons. We found 50 eligible articles. Reasons for SBD use were promoting service user autonomy, promoting wellbeing and reducing harm, improving relationships, justifying coercion, stakeholder support, and reducing coercion. Reasons against SBD use were diminishing service user autonomy, unmanageable implementation problems, difficulties with assessing mental capacity, challenging personal identity, legislative issues, and causing harm. A secondary finding was a clarified concept of capacity-sensitive SBDs. Future pilot implementation projects that operationalise the clarified definition of capacity-sensitive SBDs with safeguards around informed consent, capacity assessment, support for drafting, and independent review are required.

Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives.

The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as "procedural ethics" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as "ethics in practice." While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.

When Treatment Pressures Become Coercive: A Context-Sensitive Model of Informal Coercion in Mental Healthcare.

Treatment pressures are communicative strategies that mental health professionals use to influence the decision-making of mental health service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment. Szmukler and Appelbaum describe a spectrum of treatment pressures, which encompasses persuasion, interpersonal leverage, offers and threats, arguing that only a particular type of threat amounts to informal coercion. We contend that this account of informal coercion is insufficiently sensitive to context and fails to recognize the fundamental power imbalance in mental healthcare. Based on a set of counterexamples, we argue that what makes a proposal coercive is not whether service users will actually be made worse off if they reject the proposal, but rather whether they have the justified belief that this is the case. Whether this belief is justified depends on the presence of certain contextual factors, such as strong dependency on professionals and the salient possibility of formal coercion.

Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs. AIMS: This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. METHOD: Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process. RESULTS: Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: an interview study with mental health service users and professionals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include the possibility for service users to consent in advance to compulsory care in future mental health crises. Legal provisions for SBDs exist in the Netherlands since 2008 and were updated in 2020. While ethicists and legal scholars have identified several benefits and risks of SBDs, few data on stakeholder perspectives on SBDs are available. AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify opportunities and challenges of SBDs perceived by stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs. METHODS: Data collection was carried out in the Netherlands from February 2020 to October 2021 by means of semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and snowball methods. Interviews were conducted with mental health service users (n = 7), professionals (n = 13), and an expert on SBD policy (n = 1), resulting in a total number of 21 interviews. The data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Perceived benefits of SBDs included increased autonomy, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, possibility of early intervention and prevention of harm, prevention of compulsory care, reduction of the duration of compulsory care and recovery, mitigation of negative experiences around compulsory care, and guidance for professionals in providing compulsory care. Perceived risks included infeasibility of SBD instructions, difficulty in decision-making around SBD activation, limited accessibility of SBDs, disappointment of service users due to non-compliance with SBDs, and limited evaluation and updating of SBD content. Barriers to SBD completion included lack of knowledge of SBDs among professionals, lack of motivation or insight among service users, and lack of professional support for SBD completion. Facilitators of SBD completion and activation included support for SBD completion, involvement of relatives and peer experts, specification of SBD content, and evaluation of compulsory care and SBD content. The new legal framework was regarded as having both positive and negative effects on SBD implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs perceive SBDs as having important benefits and tend not to articulate the fundamental ethical concerns about SBDs which can be found in the ethics and legal literature. Instead, they perceive ethical and practical challenges that can be addressed through the implementation of suitable safeguards.

The Content of Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) enable users of mental health services to express their treatment preferences for future mental health crises. PAD completion rates remain low despite high rates of interest among service users and empirically confirmed benefits of their use. A systematic review of service users' preferences regarding the content of PADs could be a valuable resource for clinicians and policy makers and might help reduce barriers to PAD implementation. METHODS: A systematic review concordant with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched up to July 2, 2021. Included articles contained original empirical data on service users' preferences regarding the content of PADs or a document analysis of existing PADs. Studies were analyzed thematically, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 4,047 articles, 42 of which were eligible for inclusion. Six themes emerged (most of which included subthemes): signs of crisis, general treatment approach, preferences regarding the treatment setting, treatment preferences, coercion, and social instructions. CONCLUSIONS: The concern that PADs may be unclear or incompatible with practice standards was not confirmed. Service users generally included clear, comprehensible, and clinically relevant information in their PADs, often providing underlying reasons for their preferences. These reasons were related to previous adverse effects of medication and personal experiences with hospital admissions.

Mental Health Service Users' Perspectives on Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents that allow users of mental health services to express their preferences for treatment in future mental health crises. To increase the use of PADs in psychiatric practice, it is helpful to consider how service users view PADs and the factors that facilitate or hinder PAD creation and implementation. A systematic review of the empirical literature on this topic may help inform evidence-based policy making. METHODS: A systematic review concordant with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Relevant electronic databases were searched up to July 2, 2021. Articles containing original empirical data on service users' perspectives on PADs were included. Data were analyzed thematically, tabulated, and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles were identified and included. The following categories were identified: general preferences regarding factors such as legal force and revocability; benefits of PADs at the personal, treatment-related, and social levels; challenges and barriers concerning PAD creation and application; and possible and experienced facilitators of PAD creation. CONCLUSIONS: Users of mental health services are highly interested in PADs and regard them as tools to improve their involvement in care. They generally prefer legally binding PADs that can be revoked only when users are competent to consent. Barriers reported by service users were mainly related to the creation and application of PADs, and support in PAD creation was the most important facilitator identified. The involvement of mental health professionals in creating PADs appears essential to realize the benefits of PADs and to reduce barriers to their use.

Opportunities and risks of self-binding directives: A qualitative study involving stakeholders and researchers in Germany.

Purpose: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are a special type of psychiatric advance directive in which mental health service users can consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and involuntary treatment during future mental health crises. This study presents opportunities and risks of SBDs reported by users with bipolar disorder, family members of people with bipolar disorder, professionals working with people with bipolar disorder and researchers with expertise in mental health ethics and law. Methods: Seventeen semi-structured interviews with users, family members and professionals, and one focus group with five researchers were conducted. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Six opportunities and five risks of SBDs were identified. The opportunities were promotion of autonomy and self-efficacy of users, relief of responsibility for family members, early intervention, reduction of (perceived) coercion, positive impact on the therapeutic relationship and enhancement of professionals' confidence in decision-making. The risks were problems in the assessment of mental capacity, inaccurate information or misinterpretation, increase of coercion through misuse, negative impact on the therapeutic relationship due to noncompliance with SBDs, and restricted therapeutic flexibility and less reflection on medical decision-making. Stakeholders tended to think that the opportunities of SBDs outweigh their risks, provided that appropriate control and monitoring mechanisms are in place, support is provided during the drafting process and the respective mental healthcare setting is sufficiently prepared to implement SBDs in practice. Conclusions: The fact that stakeholders consider SBDs as an opportunity to improve personalized crisis care for people with bipolar disorder indicates that a debate about the legal and clinical implementation of SBDs in Germany and beyond is necessary.

[The combined supported decision making model : A template for an ethically justifiable implementation of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in psychiatry]. / Das kombinierte Modell der Entscheidungsassistenz : Ein Mittel zur ethisch vertretbaren Umsetzung von Artikel 12 der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention in der Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: The interpretation of Article 12 of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities led to a controversy over the implementation of the article in psychiatry. OBJECTIVE: How can Article 12 CRPD be implemented in psychiatry in an ethically justifiable way? MATERIAL AND METHOD: An empirically and legally informed conceptual and ethical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The suggested combined supported decision making model ensures the recognition of people with mental disorders as persons before the law, their equal treatment in the informed consent process and the provision of supported decision making. According to this model, coercive treatment can only be carried out in accordance with the will and preferences of the person and is subject to further conditions of proportionality and review by an independent body. CONCLUSION: The combined supported decision making model makes an ethically justifiable implementation of Article 12 CRPD possible in psychiatry.

Influence of mental health professionals' attitudes and personality traits on decision-making around coercion: Results from an experimental quantitative survey using case vignettes.

OBJECTIVE: Research on coercion in mental healthcare has recently shifted to the investigation of subjective aspects, both on the side of the people with mental disorders affected and the staff members involved. In this context, the role of personality traits and attitudes of staff members in decision-making around coercion is increasingly being assessed. This study aimed to examine the role of staff attitudes towards coercion and staff members' personality traits in decision-making around coercion in an experimental setting. METHODS: We assessed the attitudes towards coercion and (general) personality traits of mental health professionals in psychiatric hospitals with a quantitative survey. Furthermore, we developed case vignettes representing cases in a 'grey zone' and included them in the survey to assess staff members' decisions about coercion in specific situations. RESULTS: A general approving attitude towards coercion significantly influenced decisions around coercion in individual cases-resulting in a more likely approval of applying coercion in the cases described in the vignettes. Personality traits did not seem to be relevant in this regard. CONCLUSION: Strategies to reduce coercion in mental healthcare institutions should focus more on the role of staff attitudes and encourage staff members to reflect on them critically.

"Voluntary in quotation marks": a conceptual model of psychological pressure in mental healthcare based on a grounded theory analysis of interviews with service users.

BACKGROUND: Psychological pressure refers to communicative strategies used by professionals and informal caregivers to influence the decision-making of service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment or social rules. This phenomenon is also commonly referred to as informal coercion or treatment pressure. Empirical studies indicated that psychological pressure is common in mental healthcare services. No generally accepted definition of psychological pressure is available to date. A first conceptual analysis of psychological pressure focused on staff communication to promote treatment adherence and distinguished between persuasion, interpersonal leverage, inducements and threats. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a conceptual model of psychological pressure based on the perspectives of service users. METHODS: Data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews. The sample consisted of 14 mental health service users with a self-reported psychiatric diagnosis and prior experience with coercion in mental healthcare. We used theoretical sampling and contacted participants via mental healthcare services and self-help groups to ensure a variety of attitudes toward the mental healthcare system in the sample. The study was conducted in Germany from October 2019 to January 2020. Data were analyzed according to grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The study indicated that psychological pressure is used not only to improve service users' adherence to recommended treatment but also to improve their adherence to social rules; that it is exerted not only by mental health professionals but also by relatives and friends; and that the extent to which service users perceive communication as involving psychological pressure depends strongly on contextual factors. Relevant contextual factors were the way of communicating, the quality of the personal relationship, the institutional setting, the material surroundings and the level of convergence between the parties' understanding of mental disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study highlight the importance of staff communication training and organizational changes for reducing the use of psychological pressure in mental healthcare services.

[Changes in the Practice of Involuntary Hospitalization During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Experiences and Opinions of Chief Psychiatrists]. / Veränderungen in der psychiatrischen Unterbringungspraxis während der COVID-19-Pandemie.

OBJECTIVE: To collect experiences and opinions of chief psychiatrists in relation to changes in the practice of involuntary hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Online survey among members of the Association of Chief Physicians for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy in North Rhine-Westphalia (LLPP) and analysis of protocols of LLPP board meetings. RESULTS: Changes in the practice of involuntary hospitalization have been perceived in contexts with and without direct reference to COVID-19. These changes have affected, among other things, judicial hearings as well as decisions about the use of coercive measures. CONCLUSION: Procedural standards for involuntary hospitalization must be maintained and coercive measures may only be used if they meet the applicable ethical and legal requirements. It must be ensured that people with mental disorders are not treated unequally both when taking and withdrawing restrictive measures to contain the pandemic.

Supported Decision-Making in Persons With Dementia: Development of an Enhanced Consent Procedure for Lumbar Puncture.

The right to make autonomous decisions is enshrined in law. However, the question how persons with cognitive deficits can be enabled to make autonomous decisions has not been satisfactorily addressed. In particular, the concept of supported decision-making and its implementation into practice has been poorly explored for persons with dementia (PwD).This article describes the empirical development and implementation of support tools to enhance informed consent processes (so called enhanced consent procedures/ECP) for PwD on whether to undergo lumbar puncture. In the end of the process of pilot testing and further development of the tools, the following tools were defined: (1) Standardized Interview Structure, (2) Elaborated Plain Language, (3) Ambience and Room Design, (4) Keyword Lists, (5) Priority Cards, (6) Visualization, and (7) Simplified Written Informed Consent (Patient Information), as well as the general attitude (8) Person-Centered Attitude of the facilitator. As the development, implementation and evaluation of ECP tools is one objective of the transnational ENSURE project, we also include an overview of future empirical procedures. So far, our findings can serve as a selection of possibilities to support PwD in decision-making and help practitioners achieve an appropriate balance between the autonomy and protection of PwD in complex decision-making situation. Future studies should address the question if the proposed set of tools is effective to enhance informed consent processes in PwD.