Affiliation:
1. University of Siena, Italy
2. University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy
3. Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
About 40 years after the reforms leading to the closure of psychiatric hospitals (Ospedale Psichiatrico [OP]) in Italy in favor of a widespread model with a strong rehabilitation emphasis, Italy has chosen to close High Security Hospitals as well (Ospedale Psichiatrico Giudiziario [OPG]). The new forensic treatment model is expected to be more respectful of the person, including the perpetrators of violent crimes, and aims to be less stigmatizing and more rehabilitative. Despite the favorable premises of the reform (Law n. 81/2014), Italian psychiatrists are now obliged to answer calls to give evidence on strictly legal issues such as the social dangerousness of the mentally ill offender drawing on evidence or paradigms that many believe do not belong to medical knowledge. Psychiatrists must now learn to communicate about the relationship between psychiatry and society as required by law. This public expression engages with the cultural climate of society. Otherwise, the risk is of increasing the level of complexity leading to real misunderstandings that paradoxically may feed the stigma. The Italian reform provides an opportunity for reflection on some issues concerning psychiatric action, on how the public perceives the mentally ill and their psychiatrists, on the relationship between psychiatry and the world of law, on clinical methodologies for structured professional judgment, on public communication regarding severe mental illness, and the risk that psychiatrists may inadvertently be blamed for conveying an unwelcome message about mental illness and social dangerousness—we have called this social sensitivity against psychiatrists “hermanoia,” blaming the messenger. The authors do not provide certain solutions but propose good practices.
Subject
Applied Psychology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference91 articles.
1. Abidin Z., Davoren M., Naughton L., Gibbons O., Nulty A., Kennedy H. G. (2013). Susceptibility (risk and protective) factors for in-patient violence and self-harm: Prospective study of structured professional judgement instruments START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 in forensic mental health services. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 197. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-197
2. Adams J., Thomas S. D., Mackinnon T., Eggleton D. (2018). The risks, needs and stages of recovery of a complete forensic patient cohort in an Australian state. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1584-8
3. Aerts v Belgium. (1998). BAILII: ECHR
4. 1998. [1998] HRCD 749, (2000) 53 BMLR 79, 29 EHRR 50, (2000) 29 EHRR 50, [2000] 29 EHRR 50, 5 BHRC 382, [1998] ECHR 64. http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/64.html
5. Aimola L., Jasim S., Tripathi N., Tucker S., Worrall A., Quirk A., Crawford M. J. (2016). Impact of peer-led quality improvement networks on quality of inpatient mental health care: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1040-1