Deinstitutionalization as Reparative Justice: A Commentary on the Guidelines on Deinstitutionalization, including in Emergencies

Author:

Minkowitz Tina1

Affiliation:

1. Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Chestertown, NY 12817, USA

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Guidelines on Deinstitutionalization, Including in Emergencies function as an instrument and template for reparative justice towards persons still in institutions and survivors of institutionalization. The Guidelines construct deinstitutionalization as a reparative process at both the systemic and individual levels, as well as calling for the creation of reparation and redress mechanisms. I examine the entire body of the Guidelines, highlight their reparative content, and point out where the text may fall short of this perspective and how the shortcomings might be remedied. This paper is grounded in the situation of psychiatric institutionalization and the concerns of people subjected to that system, emphasizing issues faced by this constituency and its human rights concerns for redress and legal and societal change. The issues addressed include the following: the strengthening of normative standards with regard to the abolition of psychiatric institutionalization and forced interventions and the obligation to immediately end these violations; a policy shift towards the de-medicalization of psychosocial disability; the implications of reparative justice in diminishing the role and authority of those that have operated institutions including the mental health system; the role of adult persons with disabilities as members of families and the role played by some family members in institutionalization; issues to be considered in designing reparations processes and mechanisms. Following some introductory remarks, this paper is structured to follow the outline of the Guidelines, quoting the text with interspersed comments and ending with a brief conclusion.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference27 articles.

1. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2024, February 20). Principles on the Decriminalisation of Petty Offences in Africa. Available online: https://achpr.au.int/index.php/en/node/846.

2. Andre, Linda (2009). Doctors of Deception: What They Don’t Want You to Know about Shock Treatment, Rutgers University Press.

3. Ashe, Leah (2024, February 20). Where Is the Camp? Psychiatry and the State of Exception. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/39953171/Where_is_the_Camp_Psychiatry_and_the_State_of_Exception.

4. The World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation;Barbato;International Psychiatry,2004

5. Barriga, Shantha Rau (2024, February 20). The (In)human Dimension of Ghana’s Prayer Camps. Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/10/inhuman-dimension-ghanas-prayer-camps.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3