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)

Introduction Compulsory care is controversial, since respect for the patient’s autonomy is a standard requirement in health care. Many psychiatrists have experienced that patients with borderline personality syndrome sometimes demand compulsory care for themselves in order not to exert self-harm—like Ulysses contracts. The aim of this study was to examine the possible existence and extent of borderline personality syndrome-patient demands for Ulysses contracts regarding compulsory care in acute psychiatry, and how external influences and demands could affect the caregivers’ decisions about (...) compulsory care. Method An anonymous questionnaire, with three questions with fixed answers, was distributed to 42 licensed medical doctors on call at the psychiatric emergency unit in the city of Stockholm. Thirty-three questionnaires were answered, giving a response rate of 79%. Results Ninety-four percent of the respondents recognized the phenomenon of borderline personality syndrome patients requesting compulsory care, 21% stated that this request had affected their clinical decision, and 55% had used compulsory care for other reasons than the patient’s best interest. Discussion The results indicate that compulsory care is sometimes given in the form of Ulysses contracts for borderline personality syndrome patients. Also, compulsory care is sometimes used for other reasons than the borderline personality syndrome patient’s best interest. Psychological mechanisms affect the decisions of both patients and caregivers. More research should be done concerning to whom, why, and with what consequences compulsory care is prescribed. (shrink)

Patients with borderline personality disorder sometimes request to be admitted to hospital under compulsory care, often under the argument that they cannot trust their suicidal impulses if treated voluntarily. Thus, compulsory care is practised as a form of Ulysses contract in such situations. In this normative study we scrutinize the arguments commonly used in favour of such Ulysses contracts: the patient lacking free will, Ulysses contracts as self-paternalism, the patient lacking decision competence, Ulysses contracts as a defence of the authentic (...) self, and Ulysses contracts as a practical solution in emergency situations. In our study, we have accepted consequentialist considerations as well as considerations of autonomy. We conclude that compulsory care is not justified when there is a significant uncertainty of beneficial effects or uncertainty regarding the patient’s decision-making capacity. We have argued that such uncertainty is present regarding BPD patients. Hence, Ulysses contracts including compulsory care should not be used for this group of patients. (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)

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)