Navigating the ethical complexities of severe and enduring (longstanding) eating disorders: tools for critically reflective practice and collaborative decision-making

Author:

Jamieson Sacha KendallORCID,Tan JacintaORCID,Piekunka Kym,Calvert ShannonORCID,Anderson StephenORCID

Abstract

AbstractDecisions about the treatment of eating disorders do not occur in a socio-political vacuum. They are shaped by power relations that produce categories of risk and determine who is worthy of care. This impacts who gets access to care and recognition of rights in mental health services. Globally, there are calls for more human rights-based approaches in mental health services to reduce coercion, improve collaborative decision making and enhance community care. Treating individuals with longstanding, Severe and Enduring Eating Disorders (SEED) or Severe and Enduring Anorexia Nervosa (SE-AN) can be particularly problematic when it involves highly controversial issues such as treatment withdrawal and end-of-life decisions and, where legally permissible, medically assisted dying. In this article, we argue that the socio-political context in which clinical decision making occurs must be accounted for in these ethical considerations. This encompasses considerations of how power and resources are distributed, who controls these decisions, who benefits and who is harmed by these decisions, who is excluded from services, and who is marginalised in decision making processes. The article also presents tools for critically reflective practice and collaborative decision-making that can support clinicians in considering power factors in their practice and assisting individuals with longstanding eating disorders, SEED and SE-AN to attain their rights in mental health services.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference89 articles.

1. Carney T, Yager J, Maguire S, Touyz SW. Involuntary treatment and quality of life. Psychiatr Clin. 2019;42(2):299–307.

2. World Health Organisation. Guidance on community mental health services: promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches. Geneva; 2021.

3. Garrett PM. Social work and social theory making connections. Policy Press. 2013.

4. Collins C, McCartney G, Garnham L. Neoliberalism and health inequalities. Health inequalities: Critical perspectives. 2015;124.

5. Khoury E, Rodriguez del Barrio L. Recovery-oriented mental health practice: a social work perspective. Br J Soc Work. 2015;45(suppl_1):i27–44.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3