umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Interpretive flexibility: Why doesn´t insight incite controversy in mental health law?
Auckland Univ Technol, Natl Ctr Hlth & Social Eth, Auckland 1020, New Zealand.
Auckland Univ Technol, Natl Ctr Hlth & Social Eth, Auckland 1020, New Zealand.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work. Auckland Univ Technol, Natl Ctr Hlth & Social Eth, Auckland 1020, New Zealand.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4540-5373
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
Abstract [en]

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.
Keyword [en]
insight, tribunals, medicalization, mental health law, coercion
Keyword [sv]
sjukdomsinsikt, medikalisering, tvångsvård, domar, psykiatri, tvång
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology; processrätt; Psychiatry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-14244DOI: 10.1002/bsl.705ISI: 000245110800006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-14244DiVA: diva2:153915
Note

Article first published online: 4 SEP 2006

Available from: 2007-05-24 Created: 2007-05-24 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sjöström, Stefan
By organisation
Department of Social Work
In the same journal
Behavioral sciences & the law (Print)
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 54 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf