OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to criticize the legal reasoning of refusal to insure or provide coverage to the mentally ill. This study focuses on the antagonistic fundamentals between legal rationality and social solidarity in insurance relationship. Findings of this study suggest that social solidarity should have the capacity to control legal rationality and economic efficiency. METHODS: This study surveyed affirmative actions of the state agencies against insurance discrimination through insurance codes of the Financial Supervisory Service, decisions of district courts, recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, and legislation of the National Assembly. RESULTS: Actions of the state agencies to reduce insurance discrimination against the mentally ill are passive, ritualistic, and superficial. The policy failure of the state agencies is due to securing the principle of contract freedom without controlling insurance companies. CONCLUSION: In insurance relations, emphasizing the principle of contract freedom and the legal, economic rationality causes the socially marginalized to be excluded from social relations and face social danger in naked. Social solidarity and public interest is the legal reasoning that can overcome the economic rationality of insurance companies.
Discrimination (Psychology)* ; Disulfiram ; Freedom ; Human Rights ; Humans ; Insurance* ; Mentally Ill Persons*