Current Human Rights Education for Psychiatrists Leaves Much to Be Desired.
10.4306/jknpa.2016.55.4.289
- Author:
Yu Ree KANG
1
;
Joon Ho AHN
;
Yeonho JOO
;
Chang Yoon KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. amc.cykim@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Legislation ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Human rights education;
Psychiatrists;
National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea;
Korean Mental Health Act
- MeSH:
Education*;
Hospitalization;
Human Rights Abuses;
Human Rights*;
Humans*;
Jurisprudence;
Korea;
Psychiatry*;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
2016;55(4):289-298
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: Human rights education programs have been implemented annually since Korea enacted human rights legislation in 2009. The purpose of this study was to investigate attitudes of Korean psychiatrists toward human rights education and assess the relevance of the provided education materials. METHODS: Questionnaires comprised of 8 items were provided to 274 psychiatrists attending the April 2015 Korean Neuropsychiatric Association seminar. In addition, 12 cases related to education material developed by the Korean National Human Rights Commission were examined to determine whether the material's content was relevant and appropriate for human rights education. RESULTS: Data from 267 psychiatrists that answered all requested questions were included in the analysis. Although respondents in general accepted the beneficial intent of human rights education, the majority of respondents (71.5%) disagreed with the mandatory 4 h of annual human rights education. Approximately half of respondents (49.4%) believed that frequency of such education should be decreased. A substantial percentage of respondents (38.7%) expressed overall dissatisfaction with the education program, and more than half of respondents (55.6%) were skeptical that the current education program could produce a real difference in attitudes toward human rights. The case reviews highlighted several problems. First, all education materials were heavily weighted toward psychiatric hospitalization legal proceedings rather than human rights. Among the 12 cases examined, four were considered inappropriate for human rights education because they were presented as if human rights abuse was synonymous with violation of a law, even if the law was ambiguous. CONCLUSION: The current human rights education program does not meet psychiatrists' expectations. The results of this study suggest there is a need to reconsider the purpose and means of providing human rights education to psychiatrists.
