An International Comparison of Psychiatric Advance Directive Policy: Across eleven jurisdictions and alongside advance directive policy

Abstract

The present work provides a comparative policy review of psychiatric advance directives, considering 1) variation across eleven international jurisdictions and 2) differentiation from other advance directive policy. The aim is to support well-founded legal and clinical practice when it comes to psychiatric advance directives by 1) clarifying the range of present approaches and 2) highlighting differential treatment of those with mental health conditions. Applicable statutes in England and Wales; Germany; India; the Netherlands; New South Wales (Australia), Northern Ireland, Virginia (USA); Washington (USA); Switzerland; Scotland; and Victoria (Australia) were reviewed by a team with expertise in law, clinical practice, and ethics. Policy variations were identified related to requirements for validity, activation, amendment, revocation, and override of preferences expressed. Psychiatric advance directives tend to be more strictly regulated and have less legal force than medical advance directives, with more restrictive guidelines and more conditions allowing advance preferences to be overridden. Psychiatric advance directives also tend to be less uniform across jurisdictions, sometimes reflecting varied functions of the directive and sometimes suggesting varied framing of the appropriateness of coercion in psychiatric care. More work is needed to evaluate the validity of distinct psychiatric advance directive policy. Stricter regulation and weaker legal force can serve as barriers to use, and coercion carries associated harms; psychiatric advance directive policy, especially choices that differ from other advance directive policy, should be well-justified.