↓ Skip to main content

Safer self-injury or assisted self-harm?

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 382)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Safer self-injury or assisted self-harm?
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11017-010-9135-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry Gutridge

Abstract

Psychiatric patients may try (or express a desire) to injure themselves in hospital in order to cope with overwhelming emotional pain. Some health care practitioners and patients propose allowing a controlled amount of self-injury to occur in inpatient facilities, so as to prevent escalation of distress. Is this approach an example of professional assistance with harm? Or, is the approach more likely to minimise harm, by ensuring safer self-injury? In this article, I argue that health care practitioners who use harm-minimisation can be considered to be helping physical injury to occur, although they do not encourage the act. I consider why there are compelling reasons to believe that a patient who self-injures is not maximally autonomous in relation to that choice. However, I then move onto argue that allowing a degree of self-injury may enable engagement with psychotherapy (enhancing autonomy) and behavioural change. In these circumstances, allowing injury (with precautions) may not be harm, all things considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 20%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,772,007
of 25,652,464 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#31
of 382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,218
of 102,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,652,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 102,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them