Good coercion: patients' moral evaluation of coercion in mental health care.

The use of coercion in mental health care is not self-evident and requires moral justification. A joint understanding is difficult to achieve, because patients and health professionals often evaluate coercion differently. The present study aims to discuss patients' 'moral' evaluation of coercion. We believe that such a focus can form the basis for a better and more differentiated understanding of how we evaluate coercion. This is a qualitative study based on participant observation and interviews with patients. In order to focus specifically on the moral evaluation of coercion, we looked within patients' narratives to examine whether we could differentiate between how they experienced coercion and how they morally evaluated its use, and how they envision/describe good coercion. We found that patients differentiated implicitly between experiences and moral evaluation. The findings have been ordered into three types of reactions: agreeing and accepting, fighting or resisting, and resignation. Further reflection upon patients' positive and negative moral evaluations of coercion resulted in the formulation of different concrete elements at three levels: threshold elements, process elements, and empathic elements. These elements helped us to understand what these patients considered 'good coercion'. The implications are that good clinical practice cannot be separated from the formal, moral evaluation of coercion. A differentiated moral understanding of coercion can form the basis for better and more sensitive communication about coercion among all those involved. A more respectful dialogue on the moral evaluation of coercion might also raise awareness during both the decision-making process and the actual practising of coercion.