Collegiality, Therapy and Mediation—The Contribution of Experts in Swedish Mental Health Law

Abstract

Independent experts serve a vital role in how the human rights of patients are protected in mental health law. This article investigates the contribution of court-appointed psychiatrists (APs) in civil commitment court hearings. Analysis is based on 12 court hearings that were audiotaped. Supplementary informal interviews with participants were also conducted. Data were analysed through a combination of rhetoric analysis and discourse analysis. Analysis of the hearings reveals that APs do not fulfil their function to critically investigate treating psychiatrists' (CPs) recommendations that patients meet commitment criteria. They typically do not ask any questions from CPs, and the few questions that are asked do not cast light on the legal issues at stake. To further understand the role of APs, their communication has been analyzed in terms of four interpretative repertoires: collegial, disclosing, therapeutic and mediating. In conclusion, the human rights of patients subjected to involuntary commitment might be at risk when therapeutic concerns are built into the process. The specific Swedish model where APs deliver their own assessment about whether commitment criteria are met may be counterproductive. This argument possibly extends to the role of medical members in mental health tribunals in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

Experience of guilt in court hearings—Comparing rape, assault and fraud cases

“…Discursive psychology focuses on the psychological motives and morals that underpin talk about a phenomenon. We have captured discursive functions in terms of interpretive repertoires, which can be described as recurring modes of expressions that will fulfil specific functions within the framework of a given discourse (Hollander et al, 2007; Jacobsson & Sjöström, 2016; Sjöström et al, 2017; Wetherell, 1998).…”