The right to accept and the right to refuse.
The main purpose of this paper is to show that the civil commitment acts of the Nordic countries are in conflict with the ideal of symmetry, i.e. the idea that if a person has the competence (and therefore the right) to accept hospitalisation he or she should also be considered competent (and therefore have the right) to refuse hospitalisation. First, we distinguish between one narrow and one wide concept of coercion in relation to hospital admission; second, we demonstrate that the narrow concept of coercion is used or presupposed with reference to hospitalisation in the Nordic countries; and third, we discuss, from a normative point of view, the rather disturbing asymmetrical conception of patient's competence and rights implied by this narrow concept of coercion. Though the ideal of symmetry supports the use of the wide concept of coercion in civil commitment acts, it does not decide the issue. To justify a change from a narrow to a wide concept would also require empirical data about the practical implications.
Nilstun
T
T
Dept of Medical Ethics, Lund, Sweden.
Syse
A
A
D006760:Hospitalization; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D011050:Policy Making; D011640:Public Policy; D012537:Scandinavian and Nordic Countries; D016312:Treatment Refusal