“Barn finns i psykiatrin men inte i lagstiftningen”. En argumentationsanalys av remissvaren till utredningen För barnets bästa?

Sammanfattning: In 2017 the Swedish government issued an official report containing proposed changes to the compulsory care legislation to strengthen the child rights perspective and provide extended knowledge to the workers within psychiatry. The aim of this study was therefore to examine the reasoning regarding the proposed changes in the comment letters following the official report of the Swedish government: For the best interest of the child? The investigation of coercive measures against children in compulsory psychiatric care. The method chosen for this study was a qualitative argumentation analysis including 11 comment letters. In analyzing our results we applied a social constructivist theory to the findings, we also used a sociology of law perspective and applied the concept of the ‘best interest of the child’ to the empirical material. This study found that despite the current legislation aiming to allow the concept of the best interest of the child to be applied in practice there is a discrepancy between what the law says and how it is used in practice. The comment letters express a need for competence and knowledge regarding how to ensure the child's good care with a strong child rights perspective. This study has therefore highlighted the pro and contra arguments issued by the comment letters, putting them against each other and analysing their meaning. The incorporation of the best interest of the child and the child rights perspective described in The Convention of the Rights of the Child needs to be accompanied by further education and support within all the compulsory psychiatric care.