Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Viewpoint

Vol. 155 No. 12 (2025)

The role of advance directives in preventing compulsory placement and coercive measures in Switzerland: a need to review present practice

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:4616
Published
19.12.2025

Summary

In Switzerland, where individual self-determination and self-responsibility are strong values, coercive measures are still very present in the care of individuals with mental health conditions. In 2022, over 18,000 cases of compulsory care placements were recorded – one of the highest rates in Europe [1]. The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) is reviewing its guidelines on coercion to better support practice. The present viewpoint aims to contribute to such efforts by focusing on the role of advance directives in preventing unwanted compulsory placement and coercive measures.

Advance directives support individuals to document treatment preferences in anticipation of future incapacity. There is, though, differentiation between psychiatric and non-psychiatric cases: while treatment refusals for somatic conditions are typically considered binding, the preferences expressed in psychiatric advance directives can be overridden following compulsory placement. This creates a double standard that undermines self-determination for individuals with mental health conditions.

The present article advocates for uniform legal standards that would grant psychiatric advance directives equal binding force. It explores the validity of common arguments against doing so, suggesting that objections often rely on inconsistent or ethically flawed reasoning. The piece lays out arguments in support of modifying policy on psychiatric advance directives, suggesting that comparably binding directives might enhance patient autonomy, reduce the harm of coercive interventions, promote goal-concordant care, strengthen oversight, and address discriminatory policy.

As the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences revisits guidelines on coercive practices, it is a good moment to consider the potential value of binding psychiatric advance directives as tools to uphold patient autonomy and contribute to broader efforts to reduce the harm of coercive practices.

References

  1. 1. Socialdesign; Forschungsgruppe Mental Health Care and Service Research. Evaluation der Bestimmungen zur fürsorgerischen Unterbringung (FU; Art. 426 ff. ZGB) [Internet]. Bern: Bundesamt für Justiz; 2022 [cited 2025 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/publiservice/publikationen/externe/2022-08-02.html
  2. 2. Morandi S, Silva B, Masson A. Nationale Zahlen zur fürsorgerischen Unterbringung in der Schweiz: Bestandesaufnahme und Perspektiven. Lausanne: Departement of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital; 2021. Report commissioned by the Bundesamt für Gesundheit.
  3. 3. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. Coercive measures in medicine: Revision of guidelines [Internet]. Bern: Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences; 2025 [cited 2025 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.samw.ch/en/Ethics/Topics-A-to-Z/Coercive-measures-in-medicine.html
  4. 4. Baggio S, Kaiser S, Huber CG, Wullschleger A. Effect of coercive measures on mental health status in adult psychiatric populations: a nationwide trial emulation. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2024 Sep;33:e35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796024000416
  5. 5. de Jong MH, Kamperman AM, Oorschot M, Priebe S, Bramer W, van de Sande R, et al. Interventions to reduce compulsory psychiatric admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;73(7):657–64. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0501
  6. 6. Pro Senectute, editor. Selbstbestimmung bei Urteilsunfähigkeit – Zahlen und Fakten. Zürich: Pro Senectute Schweiz; 1 Oct 2017. Schweizerische Umfrage (Forschungsinstitut gfs-zürich), August 2017.
  7. 7. Switzerland. Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (ZGB), SR 210, Art. 370–373. Bern: Swiss Confederation; 1907 [cited 2025 June]. Available from: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/de
  8. 8. Trachsel M, Biller-Andorno N. Mit zweierlei Mass: Die mangelnde Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen bei untergebrachten Personen mit psychischen Störungen in der Schweiz [Applying a double standard: the lacking binding character of advance directives of involuntary committed patients with mental disorders in Switzerland]. Ethik Med. 2016;28(3):239–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-016-0407-7
  9. 9. Bridler R. Das neue Erwachsenenschutzrecht und die Psychiatrie: Einen Schritt vor, zwei Schritte zurück. Schweiz Arzteztg. 2013;94(12):486–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.4414/saez.2013.01312
  10. 10. Gassmann J, Bridler R. Fürsorgerische Unterbringung. In: Fountoulakis KN, Affolter-Fringeli A, Biderbost Y, Steck Y, editors. Fachhandbuch Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzrecht. Zürich: Schulthess Juristische Medien AG; 2016. pp. 329–40.
  11. 11. Wüthrich U. Die Patientenverfügung in der schweizerischen Psychiatrie. GesR. 2023;4:205–11.
  12. 12. Gloeckler S, Scholten M, Weller P, Keene AR, Pathare S, Pillutla R, et al. An International Comparison of Psychiatric Advance Directive Policy: across eleven jurisdictions and alongside advance directive policy. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2025;101:102098. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102098
  13. 13. Braun E, Gaillard AS, Vollmann J, Gather J, Scholten M. Mental health service users’ perspectives on psychiatric advance directives: A systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2023 Apr;74(4):381–92. 10.1176/appi.ps.202200003
  14. 14. Scholten M, Efkemann SA, Faissner M, Finke M, Gather J, Gergel T, et al. Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries. Eur Psychiatry. 2023 Jun;66(1):e48. 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.2421
  15. 15. Hotzy F, Cattapan K, Orosz A, Dietrich B, Steinegger B, Jaeger M, et al. Psychiatric advance directives in Switzerland: knowledge and attitudes in patients compared to professionals and usage in clinical practice. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020;68:101514. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101514
  16. 16. Hotzy F, Jaeger M. Clinical relevance of advance directives in adult psychiatry: A systematic review. Eur Psychiatry. 2016;33:85–91. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.12.008
  17. 17. Layat C, Huber C. Patientenverfügungen im psychiatrischen Kontext: Herausforderungen und ethische Spannungsfelder. Ethik Med. 2019;31:245–55. 10.1007/s00481-019-00522-w