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.

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs.

This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders’ views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process.

Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals’ confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns.

Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.