Cited by 16Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Reasoning for autonomous suicide? A qualitative approach to pre-suicidal decision-making

Open access
Mrozynski, Hannah, Kuhn, Eva·2022·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

The article presents empirical data concerning the meaning of freedom and autonomy in the emotional-cognitive processes that govern pre-suicidal decision-making. The data is derived from a qualitative interview study conducted between December 2012 and July 2014 on an intensive care unit in Germany. Twelve patients (three male, nine female; seven with pre-diagnosed mental illness) who had attempted suicide by intoxication were included. The narrative biographical approach chosen allows to capture the individuals' experiences preceding their decisions for suicide and provides insights into the biographical contexts of their decisions. Most strikingly, the narratives underline the essential importance of interpersonal relationships as well as an ambivalent reciprocity of cognitive and emotional processes in pre-suicidal reasoning, while ideas of autonomy and decision-making capacity traditionally address rational deliberation. This divergence between patients' subjective perceptions and scholarly conceptualisations of autonomous suicide is in line with increasing criticism of conventional approaches, given that they ignore essential elements of human existence, such as values, emotions, and social interdependence. The empirical findings suggest moving beyond the idea of autonomous decision-making for suicide as a rational procedure and instead conceptualise the pre-suicidal decision-making process as a highly emotional phenomenon within a relational context. Acknowledging that…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114764

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Protection from inappropriate use of suicide assistance requires a thorough assessment of decision-making capacity and whether the request is voluntary, free of undue external pressure, thoroughly considered and stable.

    “This requires a thorough assessment whether the person has the required decision-making capacity (19,28) and whether the request is voluntary, i.e., free of undue external pressure or influences, thoroughly considered and stable.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mrozynski, H., & Kuhn, E.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University Hospital Bonn (DE)
Corresponding author
Mrozynski, Hannah
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
296
Pages
114764
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210447545
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
decision-making capacity, autonomy, meaning of freedom, interpersonal relationships, mental illness, intensive care unit patients, despair, marginalization, physician-assisted suicide
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Suicide, Attempted, Suicide, Assisted, Suicidal Ideation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review