Absence of insight as a catch-all extra-legislative factor in Swedish mental health law proceedings

Previous research indicates that insight is frequently used but rarely defined in mental health proceedings. This article examines how participants in Swedish administrative court proceedings use the concept of insight when discussing decisions regarding involuntary psychiatric care. Open-ended qualitative interviews were conducted with professional mental health court participants. The results show that lack of insight is used by the informants as an argument for all three legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric care in Sweden, as well as the criterion for release from forensic psychiatric care. It is concluded that there are troublesome legal and ethical implications of courts relying on a poorly defined concept such as insight in their rulings.