Abolition: Is this the only pathway to upholding human rights and ensuring epistemic justice in psychiatry? A key informant qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: Mental health legislation authorises involuntary psychiatric intervention in certain circumstances. Although human rights concerns are becoming more prominent, debates among legal experts, clinicians and activists continue to swirl around people's rights to equal recognition before the law, such as described in the (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, 2006). AIM: This qualitative descriptive study aimed to better understand diverse views of people known to hold a critique of coercion in mental health services, on the practical expression of upholding human rights in the context of mental health laws. METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 key informants from five different countries and data was analysed using an inductive, thematic approach. RESULTS: Overall, informants characterised mental health laws as discriminatory, harmful and unjustifiable. Three themes and six sub-themes were identified. This study reports on the major themes which include: an ethical position (focusing on the present harms associated with mental health laws), strategies, (an expression of the opportunity to bring about change) and a visionary position. We explore these three features in the views of key informants as important positions in the field of abolition, and analyse each for the 'hermeneutic resources' - forms of collective interpretive resources - they provide. CONCLUSIONS: Abolition of mental health laws is often seen as not feasible in the context of psychiatry. However, abolition theories and practices are hermeneutic resources that need to be better understood because they offer social justice and community-led solutions beyond mental health laws and systems.<p></p>