-
Welcome to the homepage of the Bochum SALUS Project
The aim of the SALUS project is to enable mental health professionals to strike the right balance between autonomy, well-being and security in the treatment of persons with mental disorders.Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University BochumMalakowturm - Markstraße 258a44799 BochumGermanyTel+4923432-28628Fax+4923432-14205bochum-salus-project@rub.deDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University BochumAlexandrinenstr. 1-344791 BochumGermanyTel+4923450770Fax+492345077-1329bochum-salus-project@rub.de-
Privacy Policy
General note and mandatory information
Appointment of the responsible body
The responsible data processing company on this website is:</spanBMBF research group SALUS
Dr. Jakov Gather / Dr. Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine
Ruhr University Bochum
Markstr. 258a (Malakowturm)
44799 Bochum, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)234 32-23394
Fax: +49 (0)234 32-14205&
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine
LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum
Alexandrinenstr. 1-3
44791 Bochum, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)234 5077-0
Fax: +49 (0)234 5077-1329The responsible body, alone or in concert with others, decides on the purposes and means of processing personal data (such as names, contact details, etc.).
Revocation of your consent to data processing
Only with your express consent are some processes of data processing possible. A revocation of your already given consent is possible at any time. For the revocation is sufficient an informal message by e-mail. The legality of the data processing carried out until the revocation remains unaffected by the revocation.Right to complain to the competent authority
As the person concerned, you are entitled to file a complaint with the competent supervisory authority in the event of a breach of data protection law. The competent supervisory authority with regard to data protection issues is the state data protection officer of the federal state in which the headquarters of our company is located. The following link provides a list of data protection officers and their contact details: https://www.bfdi.bund.de/DE/Infothek/Anschriften_Links/anschriften_links-node.html.Right to data portability
You have the right to have data that we process on the basis of your consent or in fulfillment of a contract automatically to you or to third parties. The provision is made in a machine-readable format. If you require the direct transfer of the data to another person in charge, this will only be done to the extent technically feasible.Right to information, correction, blocking, deletion
You have the right at any time in the context of the applicable legal provisions to provide free information about your stored personal data, the origin of the data, their recipients and the purpose of the data processing and possibly a right to correct, block or delete this data. In this regard and also to further questions on the subject of personal data, you can always contact us via the contact options listed in the imprint.SSL or TLS encryption
For security reasons and to protect the transmission of confidential content that you send to us as a site operator, our website uses an SSL or. TLS encryption. Thus, data that you submit via this website, for others not readable. You will recognize an encrypted connection at the “https: //” address bar of your browser and at the lock icon in the browser bar.Server log files
In server log files, the website provider automatically collects and stores information that your browser automatically sends to us. These are:
- Visited page on our domain
- Date and time of the server request
- Browser type and browser version
- Operating system used
- Referrer URL
- Host name of the accessing computer
- IP address
There is no merge of this data with other data sources. The basis for data processing is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b DSGVO, which allows the processing of data for the performance of a contract or precontractual measures.
-
Impressum
BMBF research group SALUS
Dr. Jakov Gather / Dr. Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine
Ruhr University Bochum
Markstr. 258a (Malakowturm)
44799 Bochum, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)234 32-23394
Fax: +49 (0)234 32-14205&
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine
LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum
Alexandrinenstr. 1-3
44791 Bochum, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)234 5077-0
Fax: +49 (0)234 5077-1329E-Mail: bochum-salus-project@rub.de
Additionally the following conditions apply: https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/legal-notice
-
-
About the project
Background
In many jurisdictions, persons with mental disorders can be admitted to hospital and treated against their will in situations where they pose a risk to themselves or others. These justifications are often taken for granted.
Mindful of Salus, the Roman goddess of well-being and security, the Bochum SALUS project will explore the nature and normative force of service user well-being and the security of third parties in the context of coercive interventions.
Aims
The Bochum SALUS project aims to determine under which conditions (if any) considerations of well-being and security can justify coercive interventions and to prevent potential conflicts between autonomy, well-being and security by integrating explicit consideration of the latter two values into the advance care planning process. In the course of the project, we will
- identify implications of recent autonomy-enhancing policy measures for the well-being of service users and the security of third parties;
- examine the attitudes of mental health professionals, service users and the general public toward coercive interventions in psychiatry;
- determine under which conditions, if any, involuntary interventions are morally justifiable;
- improve the quality of psychiatric advance directives by integrating an explicit consideration of issues surrounding well-being and security into the advance care planning process; and
- assess and evaluate the opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives and explore possibilities for implementation in Germany.
Methods
The SALUS project takes an innovative bottom-up approach in which conceptual and normative analyses are informed by, and closely interlinked with, qualitative and quantitative empirical research. The method at a project-level is reflective equilibrium. This method consists in a deliberative process of working up and down from considered judgments about specific cases to moral principles governing these cases.
The project derives fundamental moral principles from legal documents and stakeholders’ attitudes and investigates considered judgments about individual cases by adopting an empirical bioethics approach. Empirical bioethics consists of the systematic study of stakeholders’ moral beliefs about bioethical issues by means of methods of the social sciences. The empirical bioethics branch will be operationalized using a mixed-method approach of qualitative and quantitative methods.
Workstreams
The questions of the SALUS project will be addressed in four workstreams, each encompassing various empirical, ethical and conceptual studies:
I. Well-being, security and coercion in general psychiatry
II. Ethical challenges in forensic psychiatry
III. Improving the advance care planning process
IV. Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives
Project structure
SALUS is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) as an independent research group in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects of modern life sciences. The research group builds a bridge between the Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine of the Ruhr University Bochum and the Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine at the LWL University Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum.
We are supported by national and international collaboration partners and advisory board members who are all leading experts in their field.
-
Workstream I — Well-being, security and coercion in general psychiatry
In many jurisdictions, persons with mental disorders can be admitted to hospital and treated against their will in situations where they pose a risk to themselves or others. Although many take these justifications for granted, there are many conceptual and ethical issues surrounding justifications of involuntary interventions based on the well-being of service users or the security of third parties.
Whereas mental health professionals tend to define well-being objectively and equate it with medical health or remission of symptoms, service users often feel that the personal and social constituents of their well-being are neglected. Because of this, mental health professionals may be unable to justify involuntary interventions to those who are subject to them.
While risk assessment tools are designed to help mental health professionals in making tradeoffs between autonomy and security, professionals often fail to appreciate the number of false positives such instruments yield (i.e., persons who are categorized as high risk but who will not harm others). Restrictions of liberty of persons who are categorized as high risk may thus be unjustifiable.
In this large conceptual and ethical workstream, we aim to
- develop a conception of well-being in severe mental disorder that is able to mediate between staff and service user perspectives;
- determine under which conditions (if any) the current preferences of service users may be overridden to promote their own well-being;
- determine under which conditions (if any) the liberty of service users may be restricted to protect the interests of others.
In accordance with the methodological approach of the SALUS project, we will start bottom-up by investigating the attitudes of service users, other stakeholders and the general public toward coercive interventions in psychiatry, employing both qualitative and quantitative empirical methods.
For the purposes of this workstream, coercion is defined broadly, encompassing not only “formal” coercive interventions, such as involuntary admission and treatment, seclusion and mechanical restraint, but also treatment pressures such as persuasion, interpersonal leverage, inducements and threats. One thing we want to find out is which forms of treatment pressures service users experience and how they rank these treatment pressures in relation to each other and in relation to formal coercion.
-
Workstream II — Ethical challenges in forensic psychiatry
Forensic psychiatric hospitals provide care for persons with mental disorders who have committed a criminal offense but who have been found to have either no or diminished responsibility for the offense on account of their mental disorder.
Forensic hospitals have the dual task of providing care to patients and offering protection to society. Because of this, the conflict between the autonomy of persons with mental disorders and the security of society tends to be more pronounced in forensic settings.
Under strict conditions, the law regulating forensic care in the German federal state North Rhine-Westphalia permits involuntary treatment with the aim of increasing the likelihood that a person can be discharged from the hospital and return to society. Similar provisions can be found in the laws other federal states.
We want to find out how considerations of autonomy, well-being and security play a role and are weighed against each other in the decision-making process leading up to a decision to file an application for involuntary treatment.
To this end, we will interview mental health professionals who played a role in the decision-making process before and three months after the court grants permission to proceed with involuntary treatment. The interview data will be complemented with from other sources, notably application forms and reports.
Within this workstream, we closely cooperate with the forensic psychiatric hospitals Herne and Lippstadt.
-
Workstream III — Improving the advance care planning process
Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents by means of which mental health service users can make known their preferences regarding treatment in a future mental health crisis. PADs are legally binding in Germany since 2009.
In their PADs, service users document preferences regarding medication, hospital admission, contact persons and care of finances, dependents or pets. PADs enable service users to remain in control of their life and treatment when in a mental health crisis. In an interview study (Kim et al. 2007), one service user expressed it as follows:
“It’s probably one of the best things that’s come into mental health in a long time because it gives you rights, while you’re sound and while you know what’s best for you – and you’re the only person that knows what’s best for you deep down.”
Although service users are highly interested in completing PADs, the actual completion rates are low. This suggests that there are several barriers to PAD completion. One of these barriers seems to be a concern among mental health professionals that treatment refusals documented in PADs may entail an increased risk of harm to self or others.
In this workstream, we aim to improve the quality of psychiatric advance directives by integrating an explicit consideration of issues surrounding well-being and security into the advance care planning process.
-
Workstream IV — Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives
Self-binding directives (SBDs) are a special type of psychiatric advance directives by means of which service users can request involuntary interventions for a future mental health crisis. This instrument may especially be helpful for persons with bipolar disorder. During a manic episode, persons sometimes show types of risky behavior that they later regret (e.g., excessive spending) and at the same time refuse help offered by others – help they would have wanted to receive when looking back on the situation.
In Germany, involuntary admission and treatment may be initiated only in order to avoid “a substantial damage to health.” As a result of this, persons who engage in excessive spending or other types of risky behavior during a manic episode may not qualify for involuntary admission and treatment. SBDs could give such persons the opportunity to plan the provision of involuntary care in such situations in advance.
SBDs are a yet controversial. The Netherlands is the only country world-wide with explicit provisions for SBDs. In this workstream, we will
- explore the experiences with SBDs in the Netherlands;
- identify ethical risks and opportunities of SBDs; and
- explore the legal and practical limits for implementing SBDs in Germany.
Within the workstream, we closely collaborate with the Department of Medical Humanities at VU Medical Center Amsterdam, the Mental Health, Ethics and Law research group at King’s College London and the German Association for Bipolar Disorders.