O cuidado em saúde mental no Brasil: uma leitura a partir dos dispositivos de biopoder e biopolítica

Abstract

RESUMO O presente artigo objetiva problematizar o cuidado em saúde mental no Brasil à luz dos conceitos de biopoder e biopolítica, enunciados por Michel Foucault. A análise das práti-cas de cuidado instituídas no âmbito dos serviços que compõem a rede de atenção psicossocial no Brasil, através de artigos publicados em periódicos nacionais, revelou a transversalidade do cuidado em saúde mental com relação a estratégias disciplinares e de controle das populações, limitando as possibilidades de resgate da concepção de sujeito e subjetividade no processo de produção do cuidado às pessoas em sofrimento psíquico. PALAVRAS-CHAVE

Patient safety in a general hospital’s psychiatric hospitalization unit: a phenomenological study

“…The team also makes it clear that it needs medical approval to perform actions for the patient. The affirmation of social division of labor is thus validated, leading to hierarchical relations, with other team members taking subordinate positions and becoming secondary in the care process (22) .…”

Procedimientos de subjetivación de trabajadores y usuarios en las relaciones micropolíticas del modo de atención psicosocial

“…O modelo hospitalar está organizado em uma lógica biomédica, centrado na figura do médico e no enfrentamento dos sintomas. Deste modo, tem como principal instrumento de trabalho, a prescrição de medicações e o distanciamento das questões subjetivas, limitando a possibilidade de novos arranjos de produção de subjetividade, saúde e qualidade de vida, que decorrem das intervenções relacionais e de experenciações (Barbosa, Martinhago, Hoepfner, Daré & Caponi, 2016).…”

Overcoming the challenges to offer quality training in psychiatric nursing

“…The history of classical psychiatry reminds us of the dominant biologicist logic in society and among health professionals, where psychic disorders were reduced to the physical and biological model. The understanding of people in psychic suffering was restricted and relegated to lack of care without any kind of approach that was actually therapeutic and centered on human needs (1) .…”

“…Any reference to subjective issues of human suffering was disregarded. Prevailed the denial of existence of a subject marginalized by society and called "crazy", who succumbed to medical knowledge and power relations (1)(2) .…”

“…In this sense, asylum psychiatric interventions were ineffective, as confirmed by the high rates of hospitalizations, readmissions and social incapacitation (1) . However, the confinement of subjects in psychiatric hospitals resulted in the mobilization of workers, family members and patients, who organized themselves in social movements that contested the hegemonic knowledge and, consequently, focused on the redirection of knowledge and practice in the area (1) .…”