Résumé
En matière d’internement psychiatrique, le cas suisse se caractérise par une forte diversité des pratiques. La principale raison est politique, soit un système
fédéraliste octroyant aux 26 cantons une large souveraineté. Pour autant, le Code civil et deux de ses révisions (1981 et 2013) entendent assurer, un tant
soit peu, l’uniformité des normes et des pratiques. Cette contribution vise à donner un aperçu, historique et juridique, des tensions inhérentes à une loi dont le principal but est de protéger par la contrainte.
In the case of psychiatric internment, Switzerland is characterized by a great diversity of practices. The main reason for this is political: a federalist system that grants the 26 cantons a large degree of sovereignty. However, the Civil Code and two of its revisions (1981 and 2013) aim to ensure a certain degree of uniformity of norms and practices. This contribution aims to provide an overview, both historical and legal, of the tensions inherent in a law whose main purpose is to protect by coercion.
In the case of psychiatric internment, Switzerland is characterized by a great diversity of practices. The main reason for this is political: a federalist system that grants the 26 cantons a large degree of sovereignty. However, the Civil Code and two of its revisions (1981 and 2013) aim to ensure a certain degree of uniformity of norms and practices. This contribution aims to provide an overview, both historical and legal, of the tensions inherent in a law whose main purpose is to protect by coercion.