(Ustavno)pravna odgovornost države in družbe za kakovost duševnega zdravja

Résumé Sl En

Javno duševno zdravje in samomor sta med pomembnejšimi družbenimi problemi. Aktivno uresničevanje odgovornosti države na področju javnega duševnega zdravja je ena izmed njenih pomembnejših ustavnopravnih obveznosti. Ne gre samo za obstoj kakovostnih programov za preventivo in pomoč ljudem z duševnimi motnjami. Država mora z zakonodajo in njenim uresničevanjem v družbeni praksi (pravna politika) omogočiti kakovostno in učinkovito uresničevanje programskih ciljev. Vzpostaviti mora kakovosten in učinkovit sistem za zaščito javnega duševnega zdravja. Odgovornost države zato presega zaščito pravic, svoboščin in drugih legitimnih interesov ljudi z duševnimi motnjami, ki se srečajo s prisilnimi ukrepi države, kot je pridržanje v psihiatrični bolnišnici. Zagotavljanje minimalnih standardov pri zaščiti teh pravic ne izčrpa njene pravne odgovornosti. Sodišča bi zato lahko strože presojala izpolnjevanje (sistemskih) pravnih obveznosti države na tem področju.

Public mental health and suicide are among the most important problems of our Society. Active exercise of the responsibility for the public mental health is highly important legal, even constitutional obligations of the State. It doesn't concern only the existence of quality programmes for the prevention of the risks for mental illnesses and assistance to persons with mental disroder. The State has to enable quality and effective achievement of the programmic goals with the proper legislation and the effective exercise of the programmes (legal policy) in social practice. It has to develop quality and effective system for the protection of public mental health. So the legal obligation ot the State surpasses the protection of rights, freedoms and other legitimate interests of the persons with mental disorder, when they face the compulsory actions of the public bodies, such as the compulsory detention in the psychiatric hospital. The safeguarding of the minimum standards for the protection of those rights doesn't exhaust its legal responsibility. The Courts could be therefore more strict when evaluating the exercise of the systemic legal obligations of the State in the field of public mental health.