PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7799539

Competence and responsibility in schizophrenia.

Abstract

In a survey of the historical background it is shown that the classical doctrine on responsibility in schizophrenia has left its mark on the wordings of the psychiatric textbooks of the different countries. Closely combined with the imputation of enduring irresponsibility in schizophrenia was the opinion that civil rights are largely suspended if a person is given the diagnosis of schizophrenia. By the more recent research results of the studies of course and long-term outcome of schizophrenia and related psychoses and the development of the basic symptom concept has shown that it is not justified on principle to summarily deprive a person, diagnosed as schizophrenia, of civil rights as well as of criminal responsibility. New directions and some guidelines for an adequate assessment of competence and responsibility in schizophrenia are described. The knowledge of the newer findings and the application and utilization of the concept of basic symptoms and non-psychotic basic stages enable to overcome the doctrines of incurability, principle heterogeneity and numinous singularity and may lead to a rather appropriate and adequate social appreciation of the disease. Insight, freedom, responsibility, and competence of a person diagnosed as schizophrenia are in the postpsychotic pure residues and basic stages much more frequently preserved and available than hitherto assumed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Gross, G Huber. 1994. Competence and responsibility in schizophrenia.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.1994.tb03035.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Justice and equality in mental health law: the European experience.

This is the text of a lecture delivered at the World Conference of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health in Sydney in September 2003 on the occasion of the award to the author of the Prix Philippe Pinel. Its theme is the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights to secure the human rights of people with mental disorders and disabilities, viewed in the context of the legislation on mental health and mental incapacity in England and Wales. Its conclusion is that the Convention is better at protecting them from unwanted or unnecessary treatment and care than it is at securing for them equal access to the treatment and care they want or need. The lecture has been updated to reflect developments in the United Kingdom since 2003.

Civil Rights↗

["For the welfare of patients"--is this really the case?].

According to a decision by the German Federal Constitution Court (1 BvR 347/98), it is illegal to refuse compulsorily insured persons therapy if they suffering from a lifethreatening disease against which there is no effective therapy on the basis of current medical science. The chosen method of treatment should offer a not entirely remote chance of healing. What counts is the effect treatment has in each individual case. Serious objections to the the Court's criteria have been expressed by medical and legal experts, who contend that the Court has disregarded patients' protection against unknown risks and "quackery" as well as the incalculable financial effects on the community of insureds.

Civil Rights↗