Douzenis Athanasios
Associate Professor in Psychiatry-Forensic Psychiatry, Director 2nd Psychiatry Department Athens University Medical School, "Attikon" Hospital.
Psychiatriki. 2016 Jul-Sep;27(3):165-168. doi: 10.22365/jpsych.2016.273.165.
According to the Greek Penal Law if someone "because of a morbid disturbance of his mental functioning" (article 34) is acquitted of a crime or misdemeanour that the law punishes with more than 6 months imprisonment, then the court orders that this individual should be kept in a public psychiatric institution if the court reaches the conclusion that this person poses a threat to public safety.1 Individuals who have broken the law and deemed "not guilty by reason of insanity" are treated in psychiatric units of Psychiatric Hospitals according to the article 69 of the Penal Code. In Athens, in the Psychiatric Hospital of Athens and the Dromokaiteion Psychiatric Hospital, and in Thessaloniki in the Unit for "Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)". The person who is deemed not guilty by reason of insanity following a crime is facing double stigmatisation and marginalisation from both the legal and the health system. He/she is usually treated initially with fear and later since there is no therapeutic aim but only the court instruction for "guardianship", with indifference. The patient who is committed by the courts in a psychiatric unit for being "NGRI" is facing a unique legal and psychiatric status.2 In this respect he/she is disadvantaged when compared to either convicted criminals or psychiatric inpatients. If the patient was not found "NGRI" (ie innocent as far as sentencing is concerned) he would have been punished with loss of liberty for a certain (specific) amount of time, and like all individuals convicted in court he/she would have the right to appeal and reduce his/her sentence in a higher court and maybe released from prison earlier for good behaviour etc. In this respect the individual found to be "NGRI" is disadvantaged when compared to a convicted felon since he/she is kept for an undefined period of time. Additionally, he/she will be allowed to leave the psychiatric unit following a subjective assessment of a judge with no psychiatric knowledge who will decide that this certain individual has "ceased to be dangerous". These problems are accentuated by the difficulties that the Greek justice system is facing. On the other side, from the psychiatric point of view, the "NGRI" patient who is an inpatient is not receiving the holistic, (bio psycho social) treatment and assessment of needs he/she requires. The psychiatric team looking after him, once the acute symptomatology is controlled is just getting used to a patient who will not be discharged in the immediate future. These patients form the "new chronic asylum psychiatric inpatients" for whom the treating psychiatrists are not allowed to discharge back into the community whilst it is unclear whether they can be transferred to supported rehabilitation units. It is a medical but also legal paradox to assign to contemporary psychiatric units aiming mainly to treat patients in the community to "keep and guard" inpatients whilst these psychiatric units should focus on care and rehabilitation of the patients (including the "NGRIs").3 Keeping patients like these in psychiatric units creates problems in the functioning of the units. These patients are "kept" in acute beds for long periods of time (5 to 6 years minimum) with patients treated voluntarily or against their will and cannot be discharged without a court's decision. The problems are obvious if one realises that the average time of hospitalisation is not exceeding 2 months for the vast majority of psychiatric patients. With the prolonged stay patients of the "article 69" (NGRIs) they not only burden the already limited resources (there is an established lack of psychiatric beds nationwide) but also this prolonged hospitalisation increases their stigmatisation and marginalisation. Thus the prolonged hospitalisation for "safety" reasons according to the court decision leads to the absence of a therapeutic aim other than maintaining the patient on the ward. Greece has agreed that there is an urgent need in developing community psychiatry services and closure/transformation of the big psychiatric hospitals (asylums). It is impossible to close hospitals where "NGRIs" are kept. The decision to move them into the community is not a medical-psychiatric but a legal one. In this respect it is imperative to establish a Forensic Psychiatric Unit for these patients. In our country as the "Psychargos" external evaluation highlighted, there are great gaps in the provision of Forensic psychiatric services.3 It must be emphasised that these gaps affect negatively psychiatric reform and social reintegration not only for the forensic psychiatric patients but for the whole of mentally ill individuals. Given that forensic Psychiatric services are developed in Athens and Thessaloniki and that training in Forensic Psychiatry has moved forward, it is imperative that the state should build upon the existing knowledge and experience and create specialist forensic units aiming to treat and rehabilitate this special and important group of patients.4 Only when the patients found "not guilty by reasons of insanity" have their own (safe for the society and them) therapeutic and rehabilitative services the aim of de-institutionalisation will be visible and realistic to implement.
根据希腊刑法,如果某人“由于其精神功能的病态紊乱”(第34条)而被判定无罪,而该法律对该罪行或轻罪的处罚是监禁6个月以上,那么如果法院得出结论认为此人对公共安全构成威胁,法院将下令将其关押在公立精神病院。1 根据刑法典第69条,触犯法律并被判定“因精神错乱而无罪”的个人在精神病医院的精神科接受治疗。在雅典,在雅典精神病医院和德罗莫卡泰翁精神病医院,以及在塞萨洛尼基的“因精神错乱而无罪(NGRI)”病房。因犯罪被判定因精神错乱而无罪的人面临着来自法律和医疗系统的双重污名化和边缘化。他/她最初通常受到恐惧对待,后来由于没有治疗目的,只有法院关于“监护”的指示,所以受到冷漠对待。因“NGRI”被法院送进精神科病房的患者面临着独特的法律和精神状态。2 在这方面,与被定罪的罪犯或精神科住院患者相比,他/她处于不利地位。如果患者未被判定“NGRI”(即就量刑而言无罪),他将被剥夺一定(特定)时间的自由,并且像所有在法庭上被定罪的人一样,他/她有权上诉并在上级法院减轻刑罚,也许还能因表现良好等原因提前出狱。在这方面,被判定为“NGRI”的人与被定罪的重罪犯相比处于不利地位,因为他/她被关押的时间不确定。此外,在没有精神病学知识的法官主观评估认为该特定个人“不再危险”后,他/她才会被允许离开精神科病房。希腊司法系统面临的困难加剧了这些问题。另一方面,从精神病学角度来看,作为住院患者的“NGRI”患者没有得到他/她所需要的全面的(生物心理社会)治疗和需求评估。照顾他的精神科团队一旦急性症状得到控制,就只是习惯了一个短期内不会出院的患者。这些患者形成了“新的慢性庇护精神科住院患者”,治疗精神科医生不允许将他们送回社区,同时也不清楚他们是否可以转到支持性康复单位。将主要旨在治疗社区患者的当代精神科病房用于“关押和看守”住院患者是一个医学上但也是法律上的悖论,而这些精神科病房应该专注于患者(包括“NGRI”患者)的护理和康复。3 将这些患者留在精神科病房给病房的运作带来了问题。这些患者长时间(至少5到6年)占用急性病床,与自愿或非自愿接受治疗的患者在一起,没有法院的决定就不能出院。如果人们意识到绝大多数精神科患者的平均住院时间不超过2个月,问题就很明显了。对于“第69条”(NGRI)的患者来说,长期住院不仅给本就有限的资源带来负担(全国范围内精神病床位一直短缺),而且这种长期住院还增加了他们的污名化和边缘化。因此,根据法院判决出于“安全”原因的长期住院导致除了将患者留在病房外没有其他治疗目的。希腊已经同意迫切需要发展社区精神病学服务并关闭/改造大型精神病医院(收容所)。但不可能关闭关押 “NGRI” 患者的医院。将他们转移到社区的决定不是医学 - 精神病学上的决定,而是法律上的决定。在这方面,为这些患者建立一个法医精神病科是当务之急。在我国,正如“Psychargos”外部评估所强调的,法医精神病服务的提供存在很大差距。3 必须强调的是,这些差距不仅对法医精神病患者,而且对整个精神病患者群体的精神病改革和社会重新融入都产生了负面影响。鉴于雅典和塞萨洛尼基已经开展了法医精神病服务,并且法医精神病学培训也有了进展,国家必须利用现有的知识和经验,创建专门的法医单位,旨在治疗和康复这一特殊而重要的患者群体。4 只有当被判定“因精神错乱而无罪”的患者拥有自己的(对社会和他们自身都安全的)治疗和康复服务时,去机构化的目标才会变得明显且切实可行。