Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents enabling individuals with mental health conditions to specify their treatment preferences for future mental health crises. Despite the benefits of PADs, their implementation has progressed slowly. Concerns about PADs among professionals seem to be part of the explanation. A commonly reported concern is that service users will use PADs to document extensive treatment refusals. Research has not yet explored professionals’ views on ethical conflicts arising from such refusals.

The objective of this study was to explore professionals’ perspectives on ethical conflicts arising from treatment refusals in legally binding PADs.

We carried out semi-structured interviews with 14 mental health professionals working in Germany with professional experience with PADs. We prompted discussions using a case report of an ethical conflict arising from a treatment refusal documented in a PAD. We analyzed the data thematically.

Professionals described the case as extreme yet not unfamiliar. While many felt obligated to respect the PAD, they also felt inclined to override it to promote service user well-being, restore service user autonomy, and protect others. Those inclined to override the PAD focused on scrutinizing its validity and applicability, raising doubts about information disclosure, voluntariness, decision-making capacity, and PAD irrevocability. Professionals believed ethics consultation would help address the ethical conflict.

Legally binding PADs can create ethical conflicts when they include treatment refusals. While the best policy response remains unclear, professionals can help prevent such conflicts by supporting service users in drafting PADs.