Does an Advanced Directive Protect against Psychiatrist Claim of danger?

The PatVerfü, an advance directive with a built-in representation agreement, in which any unwanted psychiatric treatment and any deprivation of liberty whatsoever resulting from a psychiatric diagnosis is prohibited by law.

It reads: «I deny the existence of any psychiatric illness, and instead consider the use of psychiatric jargon and psychiatric diagnoses as slander and a serious assault to my personality, and forced detention in a psychiatry as a serious violation of my right to freedom, and as I consider any type of psychiatric force treatment as torture and the most serious degree of grievous bodily harm, I wish to, pursuant to § 1901 a German Civil Code, establish an advance directive in order to protect myself from being given such diagnoses, i.e. slander and its consequences, by refusing to be subjected to the following medical procedures: examination, diagnosis, treatment.»

This applies also to initiating guardianship. Psychiatrists do not have the power to even examine people. The court decisions published by Germen survivors (Amtsgericht Spandau 50 XVII T 8890/11 vom 29.3.2011, Amtsgerichts Wedding XVII/7201 vom 8.11.2010) respect this advanced directive, basically using one sentence that guardianship and forced treatment is categorically rejected and therefore the claim of the authorities is dismissed. There are notes for judges published in English.

Best interest and very negative treatment of the CRPD and legal capacity applies to the wording and interpreting to laws about involuntary commitment (e. g. 2 BvR 309/15 on physical restraints, “the right to freedom as a particularly high-ranking”) and does not affect advanced directives.

How come? CRPD has the rank of a law (statute). My suggestion to improve the rank of UN conventions was dismissed. The constitutional court found laws in federal states about forced treatment “incompatible (with the constitution) and void” (2 BvR 633/11, 2 BvR 882/09 2 BvR 228/12) based on Article 2 of the constitution i. e. self-determination called fundamental right to freedom of the person. These judgments do not mention CRPD. The result was «Germany without Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry—A 15 Month Real World Experience». The experience showed that it is possible to remove forced treatment from laws and some psychiatrists appealed to parliament not to give new laws. Sadly only a few hospitals used this opportunity to change personel attitudes. The complicated legal situation is explained here showing that only advanced directives can protect against forced treatment. But forced drugging seems to have been reduced 90% when new stricter laws were adopted.

Rindal, 7. September 2020


Walter Keim

Case Keim Against Germany: No Right to Information Law in Bavaria: