| dc.description.abstract | The primary objective of this master’s thesis was to study legal and ethical considerations that impact the decision-making of psychiatrists in complex cases concerning the use of coercive practices within Norwegian mental health care. Specifically, the thesis aimed to enhance our understanding of how psychiatrists weigh the legal and ethical dilemmas in decision-making concerning the use of coercion. As such, its objective was to give voice to a topic that is under-discussed within the literature on political science. This thesis intends to fill gaps in the literature on key factors that guide psychiatrists’ decisions on the use of coercion, especially lacking in qualitative studies. By using a qualitative method this thesis employed semi-structured interviews with eight psychiatrists selected through a purposive sampling. This thesis examined the theories of rational choice and social constructivism through preconceived expectations. The main findings from the study suggest that psychiatrists’ decision-making regarding the use of coercion emphasizes legal compliance and adherence to human rights alongside normative considerations, highlighting an intricate interplay between decisions based on a rational analysis and ethical reflection. The thesis recognized human rights as a framework encompassing a broad range of concepts that manifest themselves in various spheres, including the domain of coercive practices within Norwegian psychiatry. My findings point to the importance of establishing new rules, guidelines, and policies that can assist psychiatrists in effectively navigating such intricate decision-making processes. Furthermore, this thesis suggests how policies can enhance the protection of the rights of individuals who rely on professionals and legal regulations for decision-making regarding their health. | eng |