본 연구는 장애의 특성상 인권보장이 '다수의 안전'이나 '치료적 이득'과 갈등이 있을 수밖에 없는 정신장애인의 인권 보장과 제한을 일반적으로 어떻게 이해하는지를 알아보고자 하는 것이다. 따라서 일반인 10명, 전문가 9명, 정신장애인 6명을 대상으로 각 권리(존엄성 존중, 차별대우 받지 않을 권리, 자발적 입원보장, 자유로운 환경보장)별로 문제영역(장기입원, 운전면허취득제한, 강제입원, 통신의 자유제한)을 구체화하여 면담하였다. 면담내용을 질적 분석한 결과 조사대상자들이 권리보장과 제한을 이해하는 두 가지 차원을 발견하였다. 첫 번째 차원은 권리보장과 제한을 다수에 미치는 긍정적 결과를 중심으로 정당화하느냐 아니면 인권존중의 보편적 원리를 내세워 권리중심으로 정당화하느냐 하는 것이다. 두 번째 차원은 권리보장과 제한의 판단주체를 공식적 체계에 두느냐 아니면 비공식적 체계에 두느냐 하는 것이다.
본 연구는 장애의 특성상 인권보장이 '다수의 안전'이나 '치료적 이득'과 갈등이 있을 수밖에 없는 정신장애인의 인권 보장과 제한을 일반적으로 어떻게 이해하는지를 알아보고자 하는 것이다. 따라서 일반인 10명, 전문가 9명, 정신장애인 6명을 대상으로 각 권리(존엄성 존중, 차별대우 받지 않을 권리, 자발적 입원보장, 자유로운 환경보장)별로 문제영역(장기입원, 운전면허취득제한, 강제입원, 통신의 자유제한)을 구체화하여 면담하였다. 면담내용을 질적 분석한 결과 조사대상자들이 권리보장과 제한을 이해하는 두 가지 차원을 발견하였다. 첫 번째 차원은 권리보장과 제한을 다수에 미치는 긍정적 결과를 중심으로 정당화하느냐 아니면 인권존중의 보편적 원리를 내세워 권리중심으로 정당화하느냐 하는 것이다. 두 번째 차원은 권리보장과 제한의 판단주체를 공식적 체계에 두느냐 아니면 비공식적 체계에 두느냐 하는 것이다.
The main premise of this study is that the assurance on human rights of the mentally ill is contradictory to 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' or 'therapeutic benefits'. Accordingly this study aims to find out the conceptual framework of assurance and restriction on human rights of the...
The main premise of this study is that the assurance on human rights of the mentally ill is contradictory to 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' or 'therapeutic benefits'. Accordingly this study aims to find out the conceptual framework of assurance and restriction on human rights of the mentally ill. Using qualitative method, this study conducted the in-depth interview with 10 general public, 9 professionals, 6 mentally ill regarding the several issues of human rights included long-term hospitalization, restriction on driver's licence, involuntary hospitalization, restriction on communication in psychiatric ward. Research results are as follows ; two sets of dimensions are inferred from the analysis of interview transcript. First dimension is the focus of justification, ranging from the emphasis on positive consequences influenced to 'the greatest numbers'(the utilitarian thought) to the emphasis on assurance of rights without any conditions(the deontological thought). Second dimension is the locus of decision, raging from the formal system included the professionals and the government agency to the informal system included the families and the mentally ill. And there are differences in attitudes toward assurance and restriction on rights of the mentally ill among general public, professionals, and the mentally ill. In detail, general public regarded that 'involuntary hospitalization' and 'restriction on driver's license' which are apt to be directly harmful to people must be justified by consequence-centered and decided by the formal system, while 'long-term hospitalization' which is less harmful to people could be justified by right-centered and decided by the formal-system. And they thought that 'restriction of communication' could be justified by right-centered and decided by the informal system. Based on the findings, this study would conclude that practical guidelines for the promotion of human rights of the mentally ill must be developed.
The main premise of this study is that the assurance on human rights of the mentally ill is contradictory to 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' or 'therapeutic benefits'. Accordingly this study aims to find out the conceptual framework of assurance and restriction on human rights of the mentally ill. Using qualitative method, this study conducted the in-depth interview with 10 general public, 9 professionals, 6 mentally ill regarding the several issues of human rights included long-term hospitalization, restriction on driver's licence, involuntary hospitalization, restriction on communication in psychiatric ward. Research results are as follows ; two sets of dimensions are inferred from the analysis of interview transcript. First dimension is the focus of justification, ranging from the emphasis on positive consequences influenced to 'the greatest numbers'(the utilitarian thought) to the emphasis on assurance of rights without any conditions(the deontological thought). Second dimension is the locus of decision, raging from the formal system included the professionals and the government agency to the informal system included the families and the mentally ill. And there are differences in attitudes toward assurance and restriction on rights of the mentally ill among general public, professionals, and the mentally ill. In detail, general public regarded that 'involuntary hospitalization' and 'restriction on driver's license' which are apt to be directly harmful to people must be justified by consequence-centered and decided by the formal system, while 'long-term hospitalization' which is less harmful to people could be justified by right-centered and decided by the formal-system. And they thought that 'restriction of communication' could be justified by right-centered and decided by the informal system. Based on the findings, this study would conclude that practical guidelines for the promotion of human rights of the mentally ill must be developed.
주제어
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.