Coercive Measures in Psychiatry Can Hardly Be Justified in Principle Any Longer—Ethico‐Legal Requirements Versus Empirical Research Data and Conceptual Issues

AIM: To review the scientific and empirical evidence that is usually accepted for the ethical and legal justification of coercion in psychiatry. METHOD: Five key criteria are examined as follows: (1) the demonstrable existence of a mental disorder; (2) the effectiveness of psychiatric measures; (3) the use of coercion as last resort and as least possible restriction; (4) the benefit of the person affected by the coercive measure and (5) the restoration of the affected person's autonomy. RESULTS: (1) The existence of a demarcation between a mentally ill and a mentally healthy state cannot be confirmed; (2) Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions in psychiatry are not even moderately effective; (3) Coercive measures are usually not used as last resort and as least restrictive measure; (4) Most people affected by psychiatric coercion do not benefit from the measures; (5) It is at least unclear whether autonomy is affected by a mental illness and whether it can be restored through a coercive psychiatric measure. DISCUSSION: None of the central ethical and legal criteria for the use of coercion in psychiatry are clearly and unambiguously fulfilled according to current research. IMPLICATIONS: Psychiatric coercion can hardly be justified any longer.