Ethical dilemmas in community mental health care is the focus of this article. The dilemmas are derived from a discussion of the results of a qualitative research project that took place in five countries of the European Union. The different stakeholders are confronted with the following dilemmas: community care versus hospital care ; a life with care versus a life without care ; stimulation of the client toward greater responsibility versus protection against such responsibility ; budgetary control versus financial incentives (...) , and respect for the client versus particular private needs . These dilemmas are interpreted against the background of a value based ethical model. This model offers an integral approach to the dilemmas and can be used to determine policy. The dilemmas are discussed here as the result of conflicting values—namely autonomy and privacy, support and safety, justice and participation, and trust and solidarity. (shrink)

In psychiatry, caregivers try to get free and informed consent of patients, but often feel required to restrict freedom and to use coercion. The present article develops ethical advice given by an Ethics Committee for Mental Health Care. The advice recommends an ethical ideal of shared deliberation, consisting of information, motivation, consensus and evaluation. For the exceptional use of coercion, the advice develops three criteria, namely incapacity to deliberate, threat of serious harm and proportionality between harm and coercion.The article also (...) discusses the viewpoints of the ethical advice and of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine: is the advice in agreement with the Convention and can the advice refine the guidelines of the Convention for the particular context of psychiatry? Although the Convention emphasises the autonomy of the individual patient, whereas the advice focuses on the relationships between the partners involved, the advice enjoys a complementary and supportive function in the application of the Convention. (shrink)

Introduction Previous research has explored euthanasia’s ethical dimensions, primarily focusing on general practice and, to a lesser extent, psychiatry, mainly from the viewpoints of physicians and nurses. However, a gap exists in understanding the comprehensive value-based perspectives of other professionals involved in both somatic and psychiatric euthanasia. This paper aims to analyze the interplay among legal, medical, and ethical factors to clarify how foundational values shape the ethical discourse surrounding euthanasia in both somatic and psychiatric contexts. It seeks to explore (...) these dynamics among all healthcare professionals and volunteers in Belgium. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 Dutch-speaking healthcare workers who had encountered patients requesting euthanasia for psychiatric conditions, in Belgium, from August 2019 to August 2020. Qualitative thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts. Findings Participants identified three pivotal values and virtues: religious values, professional values, and fundamental medical values encompassing autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, linked to compassion, quality care, and justice. These values interwove across four tiers: the patient, the patient’s inner circle, the medical realm, and society at large. Irrespective of their euthanasia stance, participants generally displayed a blend of ethical values across these tiers. Their euthanasia perspective was primarily shaped by value interpretation, significance allocation to key components, and tier weighting. Explicit mention of varying ethical values, potentially indicating distinct stances in favor of or against euthanasia, was infrequent. Conclusion The study underscores ethical discourse’s central role in navigating euthanasia’s intricate landscape. Fostering inclusive dialogue, bridging diverse values, supports informed decision-making, nurturing justice, and empathy. Tailored end-of-life healthcare in psychiatry is essential, acknowledging all involved actors’ needs. The study calls for interdisciplinary research to comprehensively grasp euthanasia’s multifaceted dimensions, and guiding policy evolution. While contextualized in Belgium, the implications extend to the broader euthanasia discourse, suggesting avenues for further inquiry and cross-cultural exploration. (shrink)

The present ethical advice tackles the question as to how caregivers in a Catholic mental health service can take care of psychiatric patients requesting euthanasia because of their unbearable mental suffering. The question arises because the Belgian act on euthanasia allows euthanasia under certain conditions, while the Roman Catholic Church forbids euthanasia in all circumstances. The ethical advice is based on the assessment of fundamental values: the inviolability of life, the patient’s autonomy, and the care relationship between caregivers and patient. (...) To integrate these values, caregivers should in a timely fashion make clear that life is inviolable, attentively respect the patient’s autonomy, and provide the best possible care relationship, including counseling for existential questions. If the request for euthanasia persists, the only sensible option is to refer the patient to another physician, guaranteeing the continuity of the care relationship. In the tension between the inviolability of life and the patient’s autonomy, the care relationship is the binding value. (shrink)

Values in dialogue offers a practical and theoretical model for ethics in care, that has grown from experience and research. The foundation of this ethical model is laid in the care relationship and in relational personalism. It consists of three pillars: values, dialogue, and attitudes. On this basis, a practical model for ethical reflection is developed. The aim is to empower professionals in their own ethical reflection and responsibility in concrete care situations. The model is applied on several topics, such (...) as collaboration between professionals, collaboration with clients and significant others, restriction of freedom and use of coercion, and exchange of information and confidentiality. 'Values in dialogue' is written for care professionals in their daily practice and in ethics commitees, but also for teachers and students in ethics courses. It focuses in particular on mental healthcare, support for people with mental disabilities, and care for elderly persons. (shrink)

Because of the development towards community care, care providers not only exchange information in a team, but increasingly also in networks. This is a challenge to confidentiality. The ethical question is how care providers can keep information about the care receiver confidential, whilst at the same time exchanging information about that care receiver in a team or network? Can shared confidentiality be extended from a team to a network? To clarify this question, the article refers to the advice of an (...) expert ethics committee in mental health care. The advice regards exchange of information in a network as a further step in enhancing collaboration among care providers. Therefore, the good and evident practice of shared confidentiality in a team can be extended to a network if the same conditions are met. First, the care providers participate in a clearly defined and identifiable team or network. Secondly, they have a shared care responsibility. Thirdly, they have a duty of confidentiality. Fourth, they dialogue with the care receiver and obtain his or her consent. Finally, they apply the filter of relevance. Hence, conditional shared confidentiality is an ethical justification for the exchange of information in a team or network. (shrink)