Impact of statutory revisions to family-petitioned civil commitment in South Korea

Abstract

Introduction

This study examined the impact of statutory revisions in 2016 which aimed to enhance procedural justice within the process of civil commitment for persons diagnosed with mental illnesses (PDMI) in South Korea. These changes included requiring that PDMI pose a threat of danger to self or others and the need for treatment simultaneously as criteria for petitioning civil commitment. Additionally, the revision established a public entity to oversee the legitimacy of petitions to involuntarily commit PDMI to inpatient treatment. Despite these statutory changes, families providing care for PDMI still appear to depend on civil commitment as a way to seek respite from care burden, not necessarily to respond to psychiatric emergencies involving dangerousness. This practice seems to be aided by processes within the public entity providing oversight. Due to such barriers we hypothesized that, even after the statutory revision in 2016, PDMI who had been civilly committed following petitions from families will not exhibit elevated dangerousness compared to PDMI who had never been hospitalized during the same period.

Methods

Trained interviewers recruited 331 participants self-identified as PDMI from psychiatric rehabilitation agencies in the community and aided them in completing a survey including measures of self-reported hospitalization history, suicidality, and aggression toward others. Participants were classified into four groups: Family-petition committed (FPC) group (n = 30, 9.1%), voluntarily hospitalized (VH) group (n = 34, 10.3%), public-petition committed (PPC) group (n = 31, 9.4%), and never hospitalized (NH) group (n = 236, 71.3%). We conducted logistic regression analyses to compare self-reported dangerousness between groups with the NH group as the reference group.

Results

In the past 12 months, 43.5% of PDMI participants had self-reported behaviors that may have met the dangerousness criteria for civil commitment. Controlling for confounding factors, the PPC group was 2.96 times and 3.02 times as likely to report suicidal ideation and physical aggression, respectively, compared to the NH group. However, as hypothesized, the FPC group did not differ from the NH group on any indicator of self-reported dangerousness.

Conclusion

The findings were based on cross-sectional correlational data and should not be viewed as conclusive evidence that the 2016 statutory revision is ineffective in preventing family-petitioned civil commitment in cases where dangerousness is not apparent. Nevertheless, these findings encourage further empirical studies that illuminate the etiology of procedural justice in civil commitments petitioned by family members and that assess factors and contexts that promote the consideration of least coercive treatments, rather than resorting to involuntary hospitalization when psychiatric emergencies arise.