Critical thinking - Article Example

Brief Summary The authors Edwards and Hewitt enumerated the three possible options on how to therapeutically respond to patients who self-harm. These include preventing self-harm, allowing self-harm and supervising self-harm. The first option, to prevent it, presented two advantages which include a) prevention of inflicting harm and b) demonstration of commitment to patients which make them feel important. However, these positive arguments were countered by four criticisms. The first is that it will lead to increased risk of suicide.

Another argument is that it will increase the risk that patients will self-harm covertly that they will become desperate to try more drastic forms. Third criticism points that removing this coping mechanism of patients means their self-integrity will be undermined. Lastly, this option sends the message to the patients that they cannot be trusted. The second approach, non-interference or to allow it, gives the patients their sense of control over their situation and at the same time respects their autonomy.

However, this approach may cause more damage and unforeseen harm which might eventually lead to suicide, as well as lessen their self-worth due to abandonment and may also desensitize the nurses to this disturbing situation. The authors supported the last option, to supervise self-harm, because they believe that this will not compromise the autonomy of the patients as well as make them feel being cared for and the nurses will also understand the patients by befriending them. The article As the authors Edwards and Hewitt discussed and evaluated the three contending options on how to deal with patients who self-harm, it can be said that they really are aiming to recommend the last option of supervising patients and being with them during self-harm.

This is because as they presented the advantages of preventing and allowing self-harm, there were more arguments against these two choices. There weren't any sustainable evidences that will prove the effectiveness of the above mentioned approaches. This poses a problem because it can be said that these advantages are merely claims without any proof to support. However, the flow of the article is clear and straight. There is no long discussion of any other topics aside from those needed to create this article.

The aim of the Edwards and Hewitt were achieved so as to ensure that the readers will be convinced to support the supervision of self-harm as against preventing or allowing it. The approach can be considered as biased because during the introduction of the article, opposition and arguments of allowing and preventing self-harm were already being pointed out by Edwards and Hewitt. The authors questioned if suppression and noninterference are justifiable. The authors failed to provide more support and evidences to their claim that supervising the patients during self-harm is the most effective.

This poses a questionable conclusion. However, the arguments of the authors are consistent. They have clearly stated from start to end of the article that they supported the supervision of self-harm rather than the two other strategies that they explained. There is clear hypothesis and problem stated. The authors claimed that of the three options, the prevention strategy is the least plausible while there is a clear support to a supervised self-harm. This is because according to the qualitative exploration of Hume and Platt as presented by