Déstigmatiser la maladie mentale : contre-exemple de l’audience publique relative à la décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 2010-71 QPC du 26 novembre 2010

Abstract

IntroductionEndeavors to destigmatize mental illness do not always yield expected results and sometimes proved to be counterproductive. To which stand does the law no 2011-803 of July 5, 2011, help fighting stigmatization of patients with mental and behavioral disorders? ObjectiveThe study aims at showing the stigmatization of mental illness, yet during the public hearing, through the speech for the defense related to the application for a priority preliminary ruling (QPC) concluded by the Constitutional Council decision no 2010-71QPC of November 26, 2010. MethodThrough an audio-visual recording of the hearing, the speech for the defense of the defense attorney and the one of the lawyer of an association of counsel and advocacy to the assumed victims of abuse and arbitrary of psychiatry have been examined. ResultsDespite their praiseworthy aim to amend care and modality of care for patients suffering from mental and behavioral disorders, the picture of psychiatry they conveyed, the words they used are unbefitting. They developed loathing for the staff. The whole hearing resulted in a stigmatization, a lack of knowledge, a disinformation about mental illness and indeed, a counter-example of struggle against discrimination involving mentally ill patients. DiscussionThe confusion kept between patients and detainees, the principle of adversarial proceedings, the notion of defense evoke the concept of fault, the mental illness representation as a fault to be expiated, hence a triad: Judge, priest, healer. One reason for that proximity between psychiatry as known nowadays, justice system and precariousness, date back to far in history. Unfortunately, evidences supporting that idea are found in unbefitting words in the 5th article of the European Convention on Human Rights. On those grounds, it could be said that the 5th article of the European Convention on Human Rights does not respect human dignity and human rights and so, it may need some reformulation, by treating separately the case of patients and by using more convenient words. ConclusionsThe swift shifts of laws and precedents pertained to psychiatric exercise, compel the psychiatrist to familiarize himself with legislation and justice. Law-makers and judges might keep themselves informed of mental illness and the care in mental illness. The 5th article of the European Convention on Human Rights should be updated. Patients as well as psychiatrists should bear in mind the French public health code article R 4217-10.