Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:36:08.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Involuntary placement of a mentally ill person in a psychiatric hospital and care institution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

A. Arold*
Affiliation:
C, Marienthali Kliinik, Tallinn, Estonia
J. Kostomarova
Affiliation:
Law, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

In the mental health area, the most problematic issues are the involuntary placement of the mentally ill in closed institutions, both under civil and criminal proceedings, and their involuntary treatment. Despite the international efforts of harmonizing measures, the nature and practice of the services still vary from country to country.

Objectives

To analyse involuntary placement of persons with mental disorders in closed institutions under civil and criminal proceedings, which include both psychiatric hospitals and care institutions.

Methods

Review and analysis of regulations and practice of involuntary placement of a person with a mental disorder in a closed institution in the context of Estonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law, health care and social system.

Results

Estonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings regarding involuntary placement of a mentally ill person in a closed institution. However, specifics of the proceedings are different among the countries, e.g. judicial involvement, and deadlines. Also, the provision of forensic mental health services differ among these countries, e.g. in Estonia offenders and non-offenders are kept separately, whilst in England and Russia patients are not distinguished so strictly.

Conclusions

The distinction between involuntary placement of the mentally ill in criminal and civil proceedings is distinguished primarily for the reason that in one case the risk arising from the person is directly realized by committing an unlawful act and in the other case the risk arising from the person is directed at themselves or is not qualified as an unlawful act.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.