Date: 19 Oct 2012
Is There a Right to Hold a Delusion? Delusions as a Challenge for Human Rights Discussion
- Mari Stenlund
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The analysis presented in this article reveals an ambiguity and tension in human rights theory concerning the delusional person’s freedom of belief and thought. Firstly, it would appear that the concepts ‘opinion’ and ‘thought’ are defined in human rights discussion in such a way that they do include delusions. Secondly, the internal freedom to hold opinions and thoughts is defined in human rights discussion and international human rights covenants as an absolute human right which should not be restricted in any situation for any reason. These views, if understood literally, imply that a person has an absolute right to hold a delusion. However, this kind of conclusion has not been made in mental health laws, the ethical principles guiding psychiatric care or the practice of psychiatry. Instead, they assume that the use of involuntary antipsychotic medication is justified even thought its purpose is to influence delusions. The ambiguity and tension in human rights theory concerning the freedom of belief and thought challenge us to develop this theory within an interdisciplinary discussion so that people with delusions are taken into account properly.
Bayne T, Pacherie E (2005) In defence of the doxastic conception of delusions. Mind Lang 20(2):163–188CrossRef
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford
Benson v. Terhune E (2002) 304F. 3d 874. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 10, 2002. Filed September 11, 2002. http://openjurist.org/304/f3d/874/benson-v-terhune-e. Accessed 21 September 2011.
Berrios GE (1991) Delusions as “wrong beliefs”: a conceptual history. Br J Psychiatry 159(14):6–13
Bortolotti L (2010) Delusions and other irrational beliefs. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Breneman DA (2004) Forcible antipsychotic medication and unfortunate side effects of sell v. United states, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct.2174 (2003). Harv J Law Publ Pol 27(3):965–984
Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (1982) Judgement of 25 February 1982. European Court of Human Rights. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Campbell%20|%20Cosans&sessionid=78834299&skin=hudoc-en. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Currie G, Jureidini J (2001) Delusion, rationality, empathy: commentary on martin davies et al. Philos Psychiatry Psychol 8(2/3):159–162CrossRef
Currie G, Ravenscroft I (2002) Recreative minds. Imagination in philosophy and psychology. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Dichand and others v. Austria (2002) Judgement of 26 February 2002 (Final 26/05/2002). European Court of Human Rights. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-60171. Accessed 3 July 2012.
DSM-IV-TR (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC, Text Revision
ECHR (1950) European convention of human rights. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Basic+Texts/The+Convention+and+additional+protocols/The+European+Convention+on+Human+Rights/. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Etheridge AU, Chamberlain JR (2006) Application of sell v. United states. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34(2):248–250
Evans C (2001) Freedom of religion under the ECHR. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Finnish Constitution (1999) Suomen perustuslaki 11.6.1999/731. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990731?search[type]=pika&search[pika]=perustuslaki. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Ford MD (1980) The psychiatrist’s double bind: the right to refuse medication. Am J Psychiatry 137(3):332–339
Freckelton I (2004) Coercing fitness for trial: mandating efficacious pharmacotherapy. Sell v United States. Psychiatry Psychol Law 11(1):174–179
Glasgow R (2004–2005) Forced medication of criminal defendants and the unintended consequences of Sell v. United States. J Contemp Health Law Pol 21: 235–258
Gosden R (1997) Shrinking the freedom of thought: How involuntary psychiatric treatment violates basic human rights. www.freewebs.com/administrationdelajustice/documents/gosden.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Gutheil TG (1980) In search of true freedom: drug refusal, involuntary medication, and “rotting with your rights on”. Am J Psychiatry 137(3):327–328
Hamilton A (2007) Against the belief model of delusion. In: Chung MC, Fulford KWM, Graham G (eds) Reconceiving schizophrenia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 217–234
Hayes JR (2004) Sell v. United States: is competency enough to forcibly medicate a criminal defendant? J Crim Law Criminol 94(3):657–686CrossRef
Heilbrun K, Kramer GM (2005) Involuntary medication, trial competence, and clinical dilemmas: implication of Sell v. United States for psychological practice. Prof Psychol: Res Pract 36(5):459–466CrossRef
Heinimaa M (2008) The grammar of psychosis. Doctoral dissertation. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja, sarja 823. Turun yliopisto, Turku
Henrichs, KL (2004–2005) Forcible antipsychotic medication: should the mentally ill criminal defendant celebrate or fear. Sell v. United States. 90 Iowa Law Rev, 2005–2005: 733–764
ICCPR (1966) International covenant on civil and political rights. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Justice Stevens (1990) Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990). http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/210/case.html. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Kapur S (2003) Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 160(1):13–23CrossRef
Kortteinen J (1996) Sananvapaus ihmisoikeutena. In: Nordenstreng K (ed) Sananvapaus. WSOY, Helsinki, pp 32–88
Langlaude S (2007) The right of the child to religious freedom in international Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-BostonCrossRef
Lerner N (2006) Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights. 25 Years After the 1981 Declaration. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Leiden-BostonCrossRef
Lingens v. Austria (1986) Judgement of 8 July 1986. European Court of Human Rights. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Lingens%20|%20v.%20|%20Austria&sessionid=78835789&skin=hudoc-en. Accessed 22 September 2011
Nowak M (1993) U.N. Covenant on civil and political rights. CCPR commentary. N.P Engel Publisher, Kehl, Strasbourg
Ojanen T, Scheinin M (2011) Uskonnon ja omantunnon vapaus (PL11§). In: Hallberg P, Ojanen T, Scheinin M, Tuori K, Viljanen VP (eds) Perusoikeudet. WSOYpro, Helsinki, pp 413–458
Ovey C, White RCA (2006) Jacobs & White. The European convention on human rights, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Partch KJ (1981) Freedom of conscience and expression, and political freedoms. In: Henkin L (ed) The international bill of rights. The covenant on civil and political rights. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 209–245
Pretty v. The United Kingdom (2002) Judgement of 29 April 2002. European Court of Human Rights. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=pretty%20|%20v.%20|%20united%20|%20kingdom&sessionid=78835847&skin=hudoc-en. Accessed 22 September 2011.
PPPMI (1991) Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/principles.htm. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Radden J (2011) On delusion. Routledge, London and New York
Rennie v. Klein (1981) http://openjurist.org/653/f2d/836/rennie-v-klein-m-d-m-d. Accessed 22 September 2011.
Sass LA (1994) The paradoxes of delusion. Wittgenstein, Schreber, and the Schizophrenic mind. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London
Scheinin M (2000) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Stud Theol 54:5–18
Seppo J (2003) Uskonnonvapaus 2000-luvun Suomessa. Edita, Helsinki
Single G (2003–2004) United States v. Sell: Involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. Are you dangerous or not? J Law Health 18: 297–321
Stephens GL, Graham G (2007) The delusional stance. In: Chung MC, Fulford KWM, Graham G (eds) Reconceiving schizophrenia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–215
Stephens GL, Graham G (2004) Reconceiving delusion. Int Rev Psychiatry 16(3):236–241CrossRef
Szazs T (1990) Law and psychiatry: the problems that will not go away. J Mind Behav 11(3–4):557–563
Tahzib BG (1996) Freedom of religion or belief. Ensuring effective international legal protection. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague
Winick BJ (1997) The right to refuse mental health treatment. American Psychological Association, Washington DCCrossRef
- Is There a Right to Hold a Delusion? Delusions as a Challenge for Human Rights Discussion
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Volume 16, Issue 4 , pp 829-843
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Freedom of opinion
- Freedom of thought
- Antipsychotic medication
- Mari Stenlund (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Systematic Theology, Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 33, Helsinki, 00014, Finland