On the justification for civil commitment.

Abstract

This paper explores some of the controversies in the debate regarding the justification of civil commitment. The sometimes conflicting values reflected in the mental health legislation, human rights principles, moral philosophy and psychiatric professional standards are discussed. In spite of the often substantial use of civil commitment in many countries, there are almost no scientifically sound studies addressing the outcome of coercive treatment. The paper establishes that the traditional arguments in favour of civil commitment, like lack of insight and competence as well as the effectiveness of civil commitment, are poorly founded. The paper concludes that there seems to be a general agreement that civil commitment of patients who are dangerous to themselves or others should be the responsibility of the mental health care system, while civil commitment for treatment purposes is more controversial and hard to justify.