Article Text
Response
Sometimes, not always, not never: a response to Pickard and Pearce
Abstract
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.
- autonomy
- paternalism
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
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
- Non-fatal self-inflicted versus undetermined intent injuries: patient characteristics and incidence of subsequent self-inflicted injuries