The mythical psychiatrist or psychotherapist accepts and understands everything. Or does she? Years ago a respected colleague told me of his policy. If a patient in his practice attempted suicide he would discharge them. The more I think about this the more I like it. Assume that either the patient's care has been transferred, likely to a hospital, and that the psychiatry has given the requisite thirty day notice in writing, not only to the patient but to the hospital. Ethics might obligate the original psychiatrist to continue providing care for the remainder of the thirty days, but the hospital should probably take the opportunity to refer the patient to a new provider for a fresh start.
One would likely invoke such a policy on a case by case basis with exceptions as indicated. Would ethics require the provider to notify all patients of the policy before starting treatment?
Many will balk at this idea, perhaps in part related to the professional's feelings of failure, anger, and perhaps fear of recurrence. But does a suicide attempt not represent the ultimate breach of treatment contract as well as a clear statement that the treatment has failed? Does rejection of the patient after the attempt not offer the possibility of more effective treatment?
From the psychiatrist's perspective such a policy also sets a limit, expressing the position that she will not accept society's misguided attempts to hold her responsible for the acts of another.
If all psychiatrists and psychotherapists refuse to work under such circumstances, who will take care of the patients. Perhaps society needs to answer that question.