Critical points for the legal regulation of non-consensual treatments in mental health

Abstract

This article analyzes critical points in the legal regulation of non-consensual treatments in mental health. Given the growing global relevance of mental health and the evolution of the legal frameworks addressing it, a debate has emerged regarding the efficacy and legitimacy of non-consensual psychiatric measures. The text offers a theoretical analysis of the structural tensions affecting the regulation of these measures, which may serve to guide the interpretation and reform of Chilean regulation, given the scarcity of existing research. It underscores the invasive nature of these measures, which suspend fundamental freedoms based on risk assessments. The study focuses on three axes: the tension between care and autonomy; the processes of medicalization and juridification; and the debate between reform or abolition of these measures. The work emphasizes the need to design institutions capable of managing the inherent friction between different positions that articulate these critical points.