Scientiae Rerum Naturalium Humaniora Technica Medica Scientiae Rerum Socialium Scripta Academica Oeconomica Editor in Chief Editorial Secretary
The object of this prospective, descriptive investigation was to illustrate how the committed patients assessed and experienced the actual compulsory commitment and their assessment of the Danish legislation concerning mental illness by means of an interview investigation on discharge. During the period of investigation of 23 months, there were 64 compulsory admissions. Of these, 31 were on account of danger (red admission papers) and 33 on health grounds (yellow admission papers). Thirty-three (52%) patients were interviewed and of these 13 were admitted on account of danger and 20 on health grounds. Twenty-two (67%) of the patients did not realise that they were undergoing compulsory admission until the police came to fetch them. The majority considered that the functions of the police (68%), admission staff (55%) and the remainder of the staff (79%) had been good or satisfactory. 46% did not know who had demanded admission and did not ask the interviewer. 30% were satisfied with information about complaints. 42% were satisfied with the function of the supervisory committee but just under 30% did not realise that it existed. 61% considered that compulsory admission could have been avoided if other help had been offered. 61% were satisfied with the hospitalization. 64% considered that it is necessary to have legislation which permits compulsory admission. Relatively more of the patients admitted with red admission papers expressed satisfaction with, and accept of, their own compulsory admission and accept of compulsory admission in general. The present investigation will form a basis for comparison of the conditions under the new Danish legislation concerning mental illness.