Final answer:
The use of physical restraint is only justifiable under specific conditions: imminent danger to self or others, no other viable alternatives, and ongoing communication with the person being restrained. Written authorization might be important but is not a condition present at the moment of the emergency action. Restraint for convenience or non-imminent harm is inappropriate.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering the use of physical restraint on a young person, there are several critical conditions that must be present to justify its use. Firstly, there should be an imminent danger to the self or others – this means the threat must be immediate and about to occur, not a hypothetical or remote possibility. Secondly, there must be no other alternatives available; this implies that all other non-physical interventions have been tried or considered and deemed inappropriate or ineffective in the situation. Thirdly, the restraint should be implemented with ongoing communication with the young person, helping to maintain a connection and deescalate where possible.
It is worth noting that written authorization from a supervisor or authority is often a part of an organization's procedures, but is not a universal requirement for the immediate, on-the-spot decision to restrain, as situations posing imminent harm often require prompt action.
Understanding the context and the precise limits for when physical restraint might be used is essential. For example, employing restraint purely for the convenience of the caregiver or for non-imminent harm scenarios would not be considered an appropriate use. This aligns with the principle that any form of power over an individual should be used only to prevent harm to others, and not for the controlled person's own good or the preferences of the person exercising the restraint.