[After the reform is before the reform : Results of the amendment processes of mental health law in German federal states].
Nach der Reform ist vor der Reform : Ergebnisse der Novellierungsprozesse der Psychisch-Kranken-Hilfe-Gesetze der Bundesländer.
Coercion
Human rights
Involuntary commitment
Mental health law
Safeguard measures
UN-CRPD
Journal
Der Nervenarzt
ISSN: 1433-0407
Titre abrégé: Nervenarzt
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0400773
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
8
9
2018
medline:
31
8
2019
entrez:
8
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
On the basis of mental health law, which differs between the federal states in Germany, courts can order the involuntary commitment of people with severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals, if they present a danger to themselves or to others. Due to decisions of the highest courts, these laws have been subject to revision since 2011. The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the results of the revision processes in order to define the need for action for federal and state legislature. Research of the current status of the revision processes in the federal states and a comparative analysis. The state laws were compared on the basis of selected particularly relevant areas with respect to human rights and treatment. In spite of the revisions the state laws are extremely heterogeneous and in many states do not fully comply with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) or the highest courts' decisions. The state laws should be harmonized, particularly where they restrict basic and human rights, e. g. regarding prerequisites and objectives of involuntary commitment and coercive measures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
On the basis of mental health law, which differs between the federal states in Germany, courts can order the involuntary commitment of people with severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals, if they present a danger to themselves or to others. Due to decisions of the highest courts, these laws have been subject to revision since 2011. The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the results of the revision processes in order to define the need for action for federal and state legislature.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Research of the current status of the revision processes in the federal states and a comparative analysis. The state laws were compared on the basis of selected particularly relevant areas with respect to human rights and treatment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In spite of the revisions the state laws are extremely heterogeneous and in many states do not fully comply with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) or the highest courts' decisions.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The state laws should be harmonized, particularly where they restrict basic and human rights, e. g. regarding prerequisites and objectives of involuntary commitment and coercive measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30191253
doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0612-3
pii: 10.1007/s00115-018-0612-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45-57Références
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2007 Jan;34(1):96-105
pubmed: 17103042
J Ment Health. 2008 Jan 1;17(3):255-267
pubmed: 20221301
Psychiatr Prax. 2012 Aug;39(6):267-74
pubmed: 22926791
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2013 Dec;22(6):512-21
pubmed: 23682907
Nervenarzt. 2014 Jan;85(1):77-87
pubmed: 24441882
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014 Sep;23(3):289-303
pubmed: 24687693
Psychiatr Prax. 2015 Apr;42(3):133-9
pubmed: 24723039
Nervenarzt. 2016 Jan;87(1):88-90
pubmed: 26601984
Nervenarzt. 2016 Mar;87(3):311-4
pubmed: 26868108
Nervenarzt. 2017 Jul;88(7):802-810
pubmed: 27981375
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2018 Aug;86(8):485-492
pubmed: 30125919