Mental health, democracy and responsability

Authors

  • Alberto Olavo Advíncula Reis Universidade de São Paulo; Laboratório de Saúde Mental Coletiva; Programa de Pós-graduação em Saúde Pública

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19938

Keywords:

mental health, democracy, asylum judiciary, responsibility

Abstract

In this article the relationships between mental health and the tasks of the democracy in Brazil are focused. In such context, the challenges that the Custody and Psychiatric Treatment Hospitals present to the mental health field are studied. The Judiciaries Asylum, their logic and their population are considered as the last resistant border against the anti-asylum movement. Such institutions, placed between madness and crime, produce and reproduce, specifically and ambiguously, the myth of the danger/aggressiveness. Particularly in this context, the article analyzes the question of the responsibility of the author of infractions due to mental disorder.

Downloads

References

Correia L C, Lima IMSO, Alves VS. Direitos das pessoas com transtorno mental autoras de delitos. Cad. Saúde Pública, 2007; 23(9).

Miller J A Lacan elucidado. Palestras no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar; 1997.

Freud S The Schreber Case, NY, London: Peguin Books; 2003.

Ferraz FC Perversão, São Paulo, Casa do Psicólogo; 2006.

Eglander E. K. Understanding Violence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006.

Políticas públicas de/para/com juventudes. Brasília: Unesco, 2004.

Foucault M. Vigiar e Punir: nascimento da prisão, Petrópolis: Vozes; 1987.

Maciel LR. Um lugar para aprisionar a loucura criminosa. Hist. Cienc. Saude-Manguinhos. 1999;6(2).

Código Penal do Brasil. São Paulo, Brasil. Saraiva; 2001.

Andrade O. Manifesto Antropófago [1928]in: A Utopia Antropofágica, Obras Completas de Oswald de Andrade. São Paulo: Globo; 1990.

Downloads

Published

2010-04-01

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2010)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis