The practice of both psychiatric institutions and the courts regarding
treatment against the free will of a
person or involuntary treatment in psychiatric institutions remains a matter of grave concern.
In
particular, the studies of the Office of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia
raise serious concerns about the artificial and unfounded nature of the involuntary
treatment process.
In all the cases studied, the medical record histories of the
people in the psychiatric institutions did not contain any legal grounds for providing
involuntary treatment (against the free will) for these patients.
It is
a very problematic practice when, instead of properly securing an informed
consent for hospitalization and treatment, the psychiatric institution submits similar
petitions to the court based on typical "Medical Commission
Conclusions" without proper justification for risk of patients causing
harm or their need for hospitalization.
It is
particularly concerning that over the years, a group of patients who have been receiving
"voluntarily" treatment have thus, in obscure circumstances, become
"extremely dangerous to themselves and their environment", which,
however, is not substantiated by the notes in the medical history records
written by the physicians treating them.
Judicial
practice is highly reprehensible. Judges are not just puzzled by the typical petitions
of the psychiatric institutions, but the judicial acts regarding involuntary
treatment are based on the typical wordings of psychiatric institutions without
sufficient substantiating arguments.
These
judicial acts are mainly distinguished by the patients' names/surnames and
diagnoses of the disease. This implies that the judicial acts on the implementation
of involuntary treatment are of a typical and superficial nature.
Details
are provided in the annual report Human Rights Defender as a National
Preventive Mechanism
Հայերեն
