Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings

Patrick Sullivan's emphasis on the importance of supporting autonomy and independence among vulnerable people who self-injure is fundamental to good clinical practice. Although people who self-injure typically experience overwhelming emotions and may be prone to impulsive behaviour, self-injury...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Pickard, Hanna (Author) ; Pearce, Steve (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2017
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2017, Volume: 43, Issue: 5, Pages: 324-326
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002c 4500
001 1816155608
003 DE-627
005 20230426115857.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2017-104152  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816155608 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816155608 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Pickard, Hanna  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Patrick Sullivan's emphasis on the importance of supporting autonomy and independence among vulnerable people who self-injure is fundamental to good clinical practice. Although people who self-injure typically experience overwhelming emotions and may be prone to impulsive behaviour, self-injury is nonetheless a choice and must accordingly be treated as such.1 In addition, patients who self-injure when not acutely mentally ill typically retain decision-making capacity in relation to self-injury.2 This is why some forms of harm minimisation, such as encouraging reflection, responsibility, safe cutting and where appropriate self-aftercare, are uncontroversial and already widely practised within community settings. The situation is different, however, with respect to both secure and non-secure inpatient settings. It is also different when we consider some of the other forms of harm minimisation that Sullivan advocates, namely the provision of self-harming instruments alongside education about anatomy and physiology.Sullivan does not distinguish secure and non-secure settings, but it is crucial to do so. In secure (forensic) inpatient settings, it is neither practical nor ethical to provide implements that can be used as weapons to any patient, for any reason. This would be to severely compromise staff and patient safety.In non-secure inpatient settings, patients are likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act. This raises the question of the grounds of detention. Typically, patients who self-injure are detained because they are judged to be currently at risk of life-endangering or life-changing injury. As Sullivan notes, it is not clinically or ethically appropriate to provide patients with the means to self-injure when they are in this state of mind. This means that the relevant inpatient population for which a harm minimisation approach could even be considered is relatively small: those who have a standing pattern of self-injury and who are detained on non-secure units for reasons other … 
700 1 |a Pearce, Steve  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 43(2017), 5, Seite 324-326  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:43  |g year:2017  |g number:5  |g pages:324-326 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/44609992  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/43/5/324.full.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [deprecated] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104152  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/43/5/324.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 418560954X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816155608 
LOK |0 005 20220908053708 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#56F2CCD74600777DA325C2BCFDB58C29D1026B85 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/44609992 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw