Späte H F, Rogoll H
Psychiatr Neurol Med Psychol (Leipz). 1984 Aug;36(8):489-95.
An analysis has revealed the following typical mistakes in the application of article 6 of the Commitment Act: Commitment is often not preceded by an interview with the patient. Many of the patients committed under article 6 would have agreed to hospitalisation anyway. In most cases, the reasons given for commitment under the Act are inadequate and too vague. The patients are not usually given the commitment order in writing. The district medical officers often fail to inform the local councils or the state attorney. The patients are very rarely instructed of their rights. In many cases the demands placed on the hospital responsible for treatment are inadmissible, such as commitment to closed wards or requests for indefinite hospitalisation.
一项分析揭示了《承诺法》第6条适用过程中的以下典型错误：在作出承诺之前，往往未对患者进行面谈。许多根据第6条被收治的患者无论如何都会同意住院治疗。在大多数情况下，该法规定的收治理由不充分且过于模糊。通常不会以书面形式向患者下达承诺令。地区医务人员常常未通知地方议会或州检察官。患者很少被告知他们的权利。在许多情况下，对负责治疗的医院提出的要求是不可接受的，例如将患者收治到封闭病房或要求无限期住院治疗。
