perceived shortcomings and protect oneself from suffering. Nevertheless, the distance can cause suffering as the asymmetric relationship between nurses and patients is exploited (Fredriksson & Eriksson 2003). DISCUSSION Six nurses took part in the interviews. This is in line with Kvale’s (1996) recommendations of 15 (+/- 10) participants in this type of study. However, as qualitative research is not a question of numbers but of meaning it is important to reflect on whether data is sufficient, rather than focusing on the number of participants. As the study is explorative and the results contribute new understanding, the data was considered sufficient. Even though there was only one male participant, the themes were recognizable by both males and females. Therefore, without claiming that the result represents all nurses, it is transferable as generalizations are made by abstractions to recognizable themes rather than by numbers. Data was interpreted by means of a hermeneutic approach inspired by the writings of Ricoeur. A similar approach to phenomenological hermeneutical analysis has been described by Lindseth and Norberg (2004). However, while Lindseth and Norberg strive to obtain consensus among different levels of interpretation, we strongly believe in making use of the dialectic that arises from different interpretations; we consider this beneficial for critical reflection, as it challenges the interpreter to consider the reality as complex, to deal with contradictions and to find an argument that supports interpretations that have been made as meaningful and trustworthy. Trustworthiness depends on truthful narratives of lived experiences (Lindseth & Norberg 2004), and thus also on the dialogue between researcher and participants (Wiklund-Gustin 2010). Therefore, the interviewer (first author) strived to achieve a dialogue in which participants felt free to narrate, rather than experience the interview as an interrogation. As the results also highlight nurses’ shortcomings, it is likely that the interviewer’s mission was accomplished. Interpretations have been validated as plausible (Ricoeur 1976) through joint reflections between the three authors, and also in relation to a wider audience through dialogues with a group of nurses working in and studying mental health. Forensic psychiatric care is a specific context. It is regulated in part by different laws than is health care in general, but at the same time, the same basic principles should be present. Thus, even though there is a responsibility to protect not only the patient but also society, there is also a legal as well as an ethical and professional responsibility to treat patients with respect, provide the best possible care and promote patient participation as much as possible (ICN 2012). Gildberg, Bradkey, Fristedt and Hounsgaard (2012) describe how nurses strive to establish informal and trusting relationships by reconstructing normality. These relationships are supposed to provide the basis for changed behaviour and perceptual-corrective care. However, our findings reveal that nurses’ intentions to do good can fail and inflict further suffering if suffering is not understood from the patient’s perspective. This becomes evident when nurses try to motivate patients in a way that could be perceived as giving an ultimatum, or that gives patients the impression of having a choice, whereas the only possible choice is to adjust to the demands of the nurse and conform to the culture. Even though this could be understood as nurses striving to keep order in the unit (Bowen & Mason 2012) and obtain equilibrium within a turbulent environment (Salzmann-Eriksson et al. 2011), it could also be a threat to patients’ dignity. Thus, if normality is defined from the perspective of the staff (Gildberg et al. 2012), nurses’ intentions to do good might hurt the patient. On the other hand, when nurses are able to validate patients’ dignity, the care given is not only beneficial for patients but also rewarding for the nurses. When dignity is acknowledged in forensic care, patients will expect respect rather than violent encounters. Thus nurses’ way of approaching the patient, both verbally and nonverbally, is important (Gustafsson et al. 2013). This requires, however, the nurse to be able to deal with his/her own cognitive-emotive reactions and be non-judgemental regardless of patients’ behaviour (Rose et al. 2011). Furthermore, as Rask and Brunt (2006) have demonstrated, even though staff and patients mostly agree on the kind of interactions that are most important in forensic care, their perceptions of the frequency of those interactions differ. Thus, there is a risk that nurses think they are supporting suffering patients while patients experience these interventions as insufficient. Relieving suffering in the context of forensic nursing care is a challenge. Nurses constantly struggle to do the right thing and to safeguard order and security. If nurses fail to comprehend suffering in relation to the sufferers’ lifeworld, and instead relate suffering to the context or even disregard it, there is a risk that even the best intentions could lead to further suffering. Thus nurses must dare to position themselves in a position of ‘not knowing’, bridling their preconceptions, in order to approach suffering patients in a way that contributes to the patients’ understanding of themselves from a place of respect and