The Mental Health Act perpetuates the harmful and misguided detention of individuals with personality disorders. The outdated practice lacks ethical, legal or clinical justification. Coercion is mistaken for care, and detention often exacerbates distress, retraumatises patients and increases suicide risk. Despite its promises, the new Mental Health Bill fails to address these systemic failures, continuing the cycle of risk-driven, defensive psychiatry. It is time to abandon compulsory detention for this patient group, redirect resources toward evidence-based, relational interventions, and move toward a capacity-based, trauma-informed legal framework that aligns with contemporary psychiatric understanding of these conditions and fundamental human rights.

Past experiences of mental healthcare which have been perceived as harmful can present significant barriers to accessing treatment again. This article draws upon research and lived experience to consider the ways in which conceptualisations of ‘trauma-informed care’ may better incorporate the role of iatrogenic harm, thus providing more acceptable and equitable treatment for those who have previously found treatment to be harmful. A more restorative approach is offered, founded in shared responsibility and compassionate relationships, to help minimise harms and create a more healing system for patients and clinicians alike.

The present commentary raises some concerns about the risk of iatrogenic harm arising out of the diagnosis of functional neurologic and somatic disorders. These concerns are supported by evidence from the history of hysteria and findings from contemporary brain imaging. We discuss their implications for practice.

In recent years, there have been extensive efforts in secondary schools to prevent, treat and raise awareness of adolescent mental health problems. For some adolescents, these efforts are essential and will lead to a reduction in clinical symptoms. However, it is also vital to assess whether, for others, the current approach might be causing iatrogenic harm. A growing body of quantitative research indicates that some aspects of school-based mental health interventions increase distress or clinical symptoms, relative to control activities, and qualitative work indicates that this may be partly due to the interventions themselves.

Trauma-informed approaches emerged partly in response to research demonstrating that trauma is widespread across society, that it is highly correlated with mental health and that this is a costly public health issue. The fundamental shift in providing support using a trauma-informed approach is to move from thinking ‘What is wrong with you?’ to considering ‘What happened to you?’. This article, authored by trauma survivors and service providers, describes trauma-informed approaches to mental healthcare, why they are needed and how barriers can be overcome so that they can be implemented as an organisational change process. It also describes how past trauma can be understood as the cause of mental distress for many service users, how service users can be retraumatised by ‘trauma-uninformed’ staff and how staff can experience vicariously the service user's trauma and can themselves be traumatised by practices such as restraint and seclusion. Trauma-informed mental healthcare offers opportunities to improve service users' experiences, improve working environments for staff, increase job satisfaction and reduce stress levels by improving the relationships between staff and patients through greater understanding, respect and trust.