Files
Abstract
Sollicités pour expertiser la capacité de travail des demandeurs de prestations de l’assurance invalidité en Suisse, les médecins psychiatres font l’objet de critiques récurrentes. La mise en cause de la qualité de leurs rapports a conduit à ce qui s’apparente à une professionnalisation de l’expertise, dans un
contexte où l’invalidité psychique est constituée en problème public et fait l’objet d’une régulation judiciaire croissante. Directement impliqués dans ce processus, les médecins se montrent divisés quant aux façons les plus justes d’expertiser et, plus encore, quant au sens d’une politique qui fragilise les droits sociaux des malades psychiques. Cette contribution prend appui sur
l’analyse de leurs écrits et d’un contentieux judiciaire.
In Switzerland, psychiatrists asked to assess the fitness for work of disability insurance benefit applicants have been repeatedly criticized. Challenges to the quality of their assessment reports have led to something akin to a professionalization of assessment, in a context where psychological disability has become a public health problem and is the subject of increasing judicial control. Doctors directly involved in this process are divided on the fairest ways to conduct assessments and, more importantly, on the consequences of a policy that undermines the social rights of mental health patients. This paper is based on an analysis of their writings and a legal case.
In Switzerland, psychiatrists asked to assess the fitness for work of disability insurance benefit applicants have been repeatedly criticized. Challenges to the quality of their assessment reports have led to something akin to a professionalization of assessment, in a context where psychological disability has become a public health problem and is the subject of increasing judicial control. Doctors directly involved in this process are divided on the fairest ways to conduct assessments and, more importantly, on the consequences of a policy that undermines the social rights of mental health patients. This paper is based on an analysis of their writings and a legal case.