Interpretive flexibility: Why doesn´t insight incite controversy in mental health law?
2007 (English)In: Behavioral sciences & the law (Print), ISSN 0735-3936, E-ISSN 1099-0798, Vol. 25, no 1, 85-101 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
This research investigates how the term ‘‘insight’’was employed in 25 decisions from mental health reviewproceedings in Victoria, Australia. The application ofinsight appears problematic in these decisions. First, thereis little clarification of its meaning. Second, the logicapplied when insight is related to compliance is oftenunclear. Third, there are frequent allusions to an implicitand undefined scale of insight, offering the appearance ofobjectivity. We have analysed insight as an ‘‘interpretiveresource’’, focusing on its various functions in the complexsocial context of commitment hearings and with aview to its therapeutic jurisprudence implications.The variable application of insight—its interpretive flexibility—appears useful in addressing complex problemsfaced by review boards. Hence, a key function of insight isto bridge between legal and clinical discourses. Insight isalso a convenient means to avoid complicated debatesregarding the person’s credibility. By analysing insightin Victoria, we hope to contribute to better theoreticalunderstanding of decision-making patterns in mentalhealth law in general.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 25, no 1, 85-101 p.
insight, tribunals, medicalization, mental health law, coercion
sjukdomsinsikt, medikalisering, tvångsvård, domar, psykiatri, tvång
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject Sociology; processrätt; Psychiatry
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-14244DOI: 10.1002/bsl.705ISI: 000245110800006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-14244DiVA: diva2:153915
Article first published online: 4 SEP 20062007-05-242007-05-242014-12-01Bibliographically approved