This paper provides a response to Hanna Pickard and Stephen Pearce’s paper ‘Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings.’ This paper responded to my article ‘Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury.’ There is much in the paper that I would agree with, but I feel it is important to respond to a number of the criticisms of my paper in order to clarify my position and to facilitate ongoing debate in relation to this important issue.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Harm minimisation for self-harm: a cross-sectional survey of British clinicians’ perspectives and practises
- Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings
- Longer term management of self harm: summary of NICE guidance
- Self-harm in young people
- Suicide risk assessment and intervention in people with mental illness
- Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury
- Self harm and attempted suicide in adults: 10 practical questions and answers for emergency department staff
- Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm? A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy
- Antidepressant use and risk of suicide and attempted suicide or self harm in people aged 20 to 64: cohort study using a primary care database
- Assessing risk of suicide or self harm in adults