Rights against Abolition: how Law and Rights perpetuate Psychiatric Coercition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a critical analysis of the role of law and rights in the use of coercive practices in psychiatry, which are increasing in Global North countries. The first part focuses on rights as a framework for coercion. The development of mental health legislation has not altered the historical criteria for coercive psychiatric practices but has formalized the link between mental health and risk or incapacity, with rights providing the framework for coercion and maintaining the status quo. The second part examines rights as a reason for coercion. Following the recognition of rights in mental health, the right to treatment has taken precedence over the right to consent and refuse care, and over procedural rights. Legislative and judicial initiatives have multiplied in recent years in the name of rights and through a compassionate approach, facilitating increasingly implicit, negotiated, and "consented to" psychiatric coercion practices. The third part analyzes rights as an obstacle to individual, collective, and political mobilization. It examines the barriers individuals face in claiming their rights in court, the impossibility of asserting structural rights violations within the justice system, and the inability to collectivize rights claims, highlighting how implementing marginalized groups' rights contradicts the legal system's foundations. Finally, by monopolizing and directing the struggle concerning psychiatric coercion, rights prevent the denunciation of the structural issues at its core.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.161 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".