Search

It seems probable that some form of medically-assisted dying will become legal in England and Wales in the foreseeable future. Assisted dying Bills are at various stages of preparation in surrounding jurisdictions (Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey), and activists campaign unceasingly for a change in the law in England and Wales. There is generally uncritical supportive media coverage, and individual autonomy is seen as the unassailable trump card: 'my life, my death'. However, devising a law which is 'fit for purpose' is not an easy matter. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate balance between compassion and patient autonomy on the one hand, and respect for human life generally and medical autonomy on the other. More people should benefit from a change in the law than be harmed. In relation to medically-assisted dying, this may not be possible. Protecting the vulnerable is a key issue. Likewise, not impacting negatively on societal attitudes towards the disabled and frail elderly, particularly those with dementia. This paper compares three existing models of physician-assisted suicide: Switzerland, Oregon (USA), and Victoria (Australia). Vulnerability and autonomy are discussed, and concern expressed about the biased nature of much of the advocacy for assisted dying, tantamount to disinformation. A 'hidden' danger of assisted dying is noted, namely, increased suffering as more patients decline referral to palliative-hospice care because they fear they will be 'drugged to death'. Finally, suggestions are made for a possible 'least worse' way forward. One solution would seem to be for physician-assisted suicide to be the responsibility of a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying overseen by lawyers or judges and operated by technicians. Doctors would be required only to confirm a patient's medical eligibility. Palliative-hospice care should definitely not be involved, and healthcare professionals must have an inviolable right to opt out of involvement. There is also an urgent need to improve the provision of care for all terminally ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of compulsory (also known as involuntary) detention under mental health legislation have been rising over several decades in countries including England. Avoiding such detentions should be a high priority given their potentially traumatic nature and departure from usual ethical principles of consent and collaboration. Those who have been detained previously are at high risk of being detained again, and thus a priority group for preventive interventions. In a very sparse literature, interventions based on crisis planning emerge as having more supporting evidence than other approaches to preventing compulsory detention. Method: We have adapted and manualised an intervention previously trialled in Zürich Switzerland, aimed at reducing future compulsory detentions among people being discharged following a psychiatric admission that has included a period of compulsory detention. A co-production group including people with relevant lived and clinical experience has co-designed the adaptations to the intervention, drawing on evidence on crisis planning and self-management and on qualitative interviews with service users and clinicians. We will conduct a randomised controlled feasibility trial of the intervention, randomising 80 participants to either the intervention in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures will be assessed through process evaluation (including rates of randomisation, recruitment, and retention) and qualitative interviews. We will also assess and report on planned trial outcomes. The planned primary outcome for a full trial is repeat compulsory detention within one year of randomisation, and secondary outcomes include compulsory detention within 2 years, and symptoms, service satisfaction, self-rated recovery, self-management confidence, and service engagement. A health economic evaluation is also included. Discussion: This feasibility study, and any subsequent full trial, will add to a currently limited literature on interventions to prevent involuntary detention, a goal valued highly by service users, carers, clinicians, and policymakers. There are significant potential impediments to recruiting and retaining this group, whose experiences of mental health care have often been negative and traumatising, and who are at high risk of disengagement. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11627644. Registered 25th May 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11627644. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]