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in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content.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.
Keywords: Advance statement; Ulysses arrangement; crisis plan; psychiatric advance directive; self-binding directive.