Judgment Forced accommodation of alcoholics difficult

BGH: Alcohol addiction alone is no reason for psychiatry
(Jur). Alcoholics may not be accommodated in the closed psychiatry against their will, not only because of their alcohol addiction. A compulsory, requested by her supervisor housing is permissible only if the alcoholism "causally related to a mental illness, especially a mental illness" or the addiction has reached a similar level, decided the Federal Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe in one Recently published resolution of 13 April 2016 (Ref .: XII ZB 95/16).

Thus, the BGH overturned a decision of the district court Itzehoe, to accommodate a 51-year-old alcoholic against his will in the closed psychiatry. The man under care has been an alcoholic for many years.

Alcoholism - no reason for compulsory education. Image: let's design - fotolia

There were repeated delirium and falls, in which he injured himself. Even several stays in supervised residential groups and clinics could not prevent frequent convulsions and two suicide attempts. The man's caregiver finally requested closed housing.

A psychiatric assessor determined that the patient actually needed the "structure of a closed housing". However, he was still able to form a free will. Against his will accommodation is therefore not possible.

After obtaining a second opinion, the district court approved a one-year placement. It would be "brain organic changes in nature and consequential damages such as liver cirrhosis. Alcoholism has reached the level of a "mental illness", so that a compulsory placement is allowed. There is a risk of self-harm due to illness. The addiction pressure deny the 51-year-old completely.

The BGH overturned this judgment and referred the case back to the district court for further examination. According to the legal provisions, the enclosed accommodation is only permissible if it serves the well-being of the person being cared for and if there is a risk of self-harm due to a mental illness or mental or intellectual disability. The caretaker should not be accommodated against his free will.

Alcoholism in itself is not a mental illness or a mental or emotional disability. Nor does the mere risk of relapse constitute any compulsory placement requested by the caregiver. It was not sufficiently examined here to what extent the 51-year-old could still form a free will. If there is a free will, if he is also free to "refuse help," emphasized the Karlsruhe judges.

Here, the second opinion was flawed and not neutral, since it did not raise enough information to free will. This must now make up for the district court. (Fle / mwo)