{"title":"Suicide Risk Assessments Understood as Medical Rituals: Functions and Implications from Societal and Medico-Ethical Perspectives.","authors":"Antoinette Lundahl","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10419-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of suicide risk assessments in individual psychiatric treatment is widespread and, in many countries, mandatory. However, these assessments exhibit poor predictive accuracy and offer limited clinical value. This raises the question of whether non-medical reasons underpin their continued use. In this paper, suicide risk assessments are interpreted as medical rituals-formalized, repetitive behaviours imbued with symbolic significance that fulfil social functions. Several such functions are proposed, including uniting care providers around shared values in suicide prevention, fostering a sense of safety and control over suicidal behaviour, projecting accountability, and signalling to the public that action is being taken. However, this practice may inadvertently lead to an increase in non-beneficial compulsory admissions, flawed prioritization of patients, and the proliferation of defensive medicine. While the ritualistic use of suicide risk assessments may serve important societal purposes, their potential to harm individual patients renders them indefensible from a medico-ethical standpoint.Instead, evidence-based suicide preventive interventions are recommended. These include implementing general safety measures, equipping psychiatric patients with safety plans, and providing effective mental health treatment according to medical needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10419-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The use of suicide risk assessments in individual psychiatric treatment is widespread and, in many countries, mandatory. However, these assessments exhibit poor predictive accuracy and offer limited clinical value. This raises the question of whether non-medical reasons underpin their continued use. In this paper, suicide risk assessments are interpreted as medical rituals-formalized, repetitive behaviours imbued with symbolic significance that fulfil social functions. Several such functions are proposed, including uniting care providers around shared values in suicide prevention, fostering a sense of safety and control over suicidal behaviour, projecting accountability, and signalling to the public that action is being taken. However, this practice may inadvertently lead to an increase in non-beneficial compulsory admissions, flawed prioritization of patients, and the proliferation of defensive medicine. While the ritualistic use of suicide risk assessments may serve important societal purposes, their potential to harm individual patients renders them indefensible from a medico-ethical standpoint.Instead, evidence-based suicide preventive interventions are recommended. These include implementing general safety measures, equipping psychiatric patients with safety plans, and providing effective mental health treatment according to medical needs.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies