Harm minimisation and self-injury in the age of risk

Harm minimisation has been proposed as a means of supporting people who self injure. When adopting this approach, rather than trying to stop self-injury immediately the person is allowed to injure safely whilst developing more appropriate ways of dealing with distress. The approach is controversial as the health care professional actively allows harm to occur. This paper will consider a specific objection to harm minimisation. That is, it is, a misguided collaboration between the health care professional and the person who self injures that is morally and clinically questionable. The objection has two components. The first component is moral in nature and asserts that the health care professional is complicit in any harm that occurs and as a result they can be held morally responsible and subject to moral blame. The second component is clinical in nature and suggests that harm minimisation involves the health care professional in colluding in the perpetuation of self-injury. This element of the objection is based on a psychodynamic understanding of why self-injury occurs and it is argued that harm minimisation is merely a mechanism for avoiding thinking about the psychotherapeutic issues that need to be addressed. Thus the health care professional merely reinforces a dysfunctional pattern of behavior and supports the perpetuation of self-injury. I will consider this objection and argue that it fails on both counts. I conclude that the use of harm minimisation techniques is an appropriate form of intervention that is helpful to certain individuals in some situations.