Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Start single access now
Request access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Human Rights Review

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Published in: Human Rights Review 4/2018

12-06-2018

Forum Internum Revisited: Considering the Absolute Core of Freedom of Belief and Opinion in Terms of Negative Liberty, Authenticity, and Capability

Authors: Mari Stenlund, Pamela Slotte

Published in: Human Rights Review | Issue 4/2018

Log in

Abstract

Human rights theory generally conceptualizes freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief as well as freedom of opinion and expression, as offering absolute protection in what is called the forum internum. At a minimum, this is taken to mean the right to maintain thoughts in one’s own mind, whatever they may be and independently of how others may feel about them. However, if we adopt this stance, it seems to imply that there exists an absolute right to hold psychotic delusions. This article takes the position that this conclusion is ethically problematic from the perspective of psychiatric treatment and the rights of persons with psychosis. The article reflects on this particular challenge and sets forth an understanding of freedom in the forum internum that might apply to situations where for various reasons it is not, necessarily accurate to maintain that persons have an absolute right to their own thoughts. For the purpose of proposing such an understanding, the article engages with current debates within human rights theory and political philosophy and analyzes discussions about psychotic delusions and the way in which involuntary treatment is justified. Based on this analysis, this article in turn conceptualizes freedom in the forum internum as ‘negative liberty’, ‘authenticity’, and ‘capability’. This article suggests that when forum internum is redefined as encompassing a right to certain internal capabilities, the right remains meaningful for persons with psychotic delusions as well.
next article Human Security and Citizenship in Finnish Religious Education: Rethinking Security Within the Human Rights Horizon

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
In this article, the expression “freedom of belief and opinion” refers to all human rights dealing with believing and thinking, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
 
2
The terms forum externum and forum internum usually figure in human rights discussions concerning the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief (Petkoff 2012, 184–185). In this article, however, the dichotomy is linked also to discussions of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, because the division between an external and an internal sphere of rights is also implicitly at play there. This dichotomy has been the subject of scholarly criticism highlighting its ideological biases and historical baggage (see, e.g., Danchin 2008; Slotte 2011; Petkoff 2012; Slotte 2012). In this article, we offer an additional unexplored critical perspective with regard to the idea of a forum internum.
 
3
To be kept in mind, however, is that the question of choice in matters of religion has been a debated issue in modern international human rights law since the establishment of the human rights regime under the United Nations (Evans 1997).
 
4
In the recent case of Mockute v. Lithuania (27 February 2018, Nos. 66490/09, paras. 126–131), the European Court of Human Rights held that there was an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her religion when psychiatrists tried, for example, to correct the patient’s religious beliefs. However, the case seems to focus on the religious beliefs shared in community, not beliefs considered delusional. So, it is unclear whether and in what sense also delusional beliefs or thoughts are protected from the psychiatric intervention and how this kind of protection is meaningful if we take into account that an aim of psychiatric help is to cure the patient from the psychotic disorder and the delusions are understood as symptoms of that disorder.
 
5
Except that the state has to ensure that people do not interfere with each other’s rights.
 
6
On negative liberty, see, e.g., Berlin (2005, 169–170) and Feinberg (1973, 7–15).
 
7
It is not a completely far-fetched interpretation, as core human rights treaties emphasize the right to adopt and hold opinions and beliefs, including those of a religious nature. See, e.g., ICCPR (1966), Article 18:1, which declares that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion includes “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” Article 19:1 of the ICCPR (1966) states that: “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference”. The verbs ‘to have’, ‘to adopt’ and ‘to hold’ seem to refer here to particular actions in relation to beliefs and opinions (see, e.g., Lerner 2006, 5–7; Partsch 1981, 217).
 
8
For example, the MI Principles (Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care 1991, General limitation clause) adopted by the United Nations do not mention that some human rights would not apply in cases of patients with psychosis. Instead, the MI Principles discuss limitations to rights in certain situations, which seems to imply that persons with mental illness are rights-holders and may also have rights in the forum internum. The Mental Health Act of Finland (see Mielenterveyslaki 2001/1423) also uses the expression “limitations on patients’ fundamental rights during non-voluntary treatment and examination” in the title of chapter 4a, which includes, among other things, section 22b, which addresses the treatment of mental illness.
 
9
On the concept of authenticity, see, e.g., Oshana (2007), Guignon (2004), Brison (1996), Dworkin (1985, 353–359), and Scanlon (1972).
 
10
For example, when Karapuu (2011, 80–83) describes different ways of understanding freedom he does not present the view of freedom in terms of authenticity (see also Bublitz 2013, 240–242).
 
11
Martha Nussbaum (2006, 287) describes freedom of belief and opinion in the context of her capabilities approach, by noting that these rights should be understood not only in the negative sense (as demanding that others abstain from certain actions), since securing these rights is “an affirmative task”: “The right to political participation, the right to the free exercise of religion, and the right of free speech—these and others are all best thought of as secured to people only when the relevant capabilities to function are present. In other words, to secure a right to citizens in these areas is to put them in a position of capability to function in that area.”
 
Literature
Ahdar RJ, Leigh I (2005) Religious Freedom in the Liberal State. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.
Arsheim, H (2014), Lost in Translation? Religion-Making at Four UN Human Rights Committees, 1993–2013. Dissertation, University of Oslo.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1989) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Beltran S (2005) The International Protection of Human Rights versus Groups Employing Psychological Manipulation. The International Journal of Human Rights 9(3):285–305. CrossRef
Berlin B (2005) Liberty. Hardy H (ed). Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 169–170.
Berrios GE (1991) Delusions as “Wrong Beliefs”: A Conceptual History. Br J Psychiatry 159(14):6–13. CrossRef
Bolton D, Banner N (2012) Does Mental Disorder Involve Loss of Personal Autonomy? In: Radoilska L (ed) Autonomy and Mental Disorder. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 77–99. CrossRef
Bortolotti L (2010) Delusions and Other Irrational Beliefs. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bratza N (2012) The ‘Precious Asset’: Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ecclesiastical Law Journal 14(2):256–271. CrossRef
Brison SJ (1996) The Autonomy Defence of Free Speech. Ethics 108:312–339. CrossRef
Bublitz JC (2013) My Mind is Mine!? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept. In: Hildt E and Franke AG (eds) Cognitive Enhancement: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Dordrecht, Springer, pp 233–264. CrossRef
Currie G, Ravenscroft I (2002) Recreative Minds. Imagination in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Danchin P (2008) Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law. Harvard International Law Journal 49(2):250–321.
DSM-V, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) Fifth edition, Washington D.C. and London, American Psychiatric Publishing.
Dworkin RA (1985) A Matter of Principle. Cambridge and London, Harvard University Press.
Erler A, Hope T (2014) Mental Disorder and the Concept of Authenticity. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 21(3):219–232. CrossRef
Evans C (2001a) Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention of Human Rights. Oxford, Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Evans MD (2001b) Human Rights, Religious Liberty, and the Universality Debate. In: O’Dair R and Lewis A (eds) Law and Religion. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 205–226. CrossRef
Evans MD (1997) Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Feinberg J (1973) Social Philosophy. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Fulford KWM, Radoilska L (2012) Three Challenges from Delusion for Theories of Autonomy. In: Radoilska L (ed) Autonomy and Mental Disorder. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 44–74. CrossRef
Fulford KWM, Thornton T, Graham G (2006) Oxford Textbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Guignon C (2004) On Being Authentic. London and New York, Routledge.
Gutheil TG (1980) In Search of True Freedom: Drug Refusal, Involuntary Medication, and “Rotting with Your Rights On”. American Journal of Psychiatry 137(3):327–328. CrossRef
Gøtzsche, PC (2015) Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. København, People’s Press.
Gunn TJ (2003) The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of ‘Religion’ in International Law. Harvard Human Rights Journal 15:189–215.
Heinimaa, M (2002) Incomprehensibility: The Role of the Concept in DSM-IV Definition of Schizophrenic Delusions. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5(3):291–295. CrossRef
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966).
Iso-Koivisto E (2004) “Pois sieltä, ylös, takaisin” – ensimmäinen psykoosi kokemuksena. Dissertation, Turun yliopisto.
Kaltiala-Heino RK, Korkeila J, Tuohimäki C, Tuori T, Lehtinen V (2000) Coercion and Restrictions in Psychiatric Inpatient Treatment. European Psychiatry 15(3):213–219. CrossRef
Kapur S (2003) Psychosis as a State of Aberrant Salience: A Framework Linking Biology, Phenomenology, and Pharmacology in Schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 160(1):13–23. CrossRef
Karapuu H (2011) Perusoikeuksien Käsite ja Luokittelu. In: Hallberg P et al (eds) Perusoikeudet. Helsinki, WSOYpro, pp 63–87.
Klasson Sundin M (2016) Barnets religionsfrihet - en villkorad frihet? En filosofisk undersökning utifrån FN:s Barnkonvention. Dissertation, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Kuosmanen J (2009) Personal Liberty in Psychiatric Care–Towards Service User Involvement. Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja, Sarja D: 841. Dissertation, Turun yliopisto.
Langlaude S (2007) The Right of the Child to Religious Freedom in International Law. Leiden and Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. CrossRef
Lerner N (2006) Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights. 25 Years After the 1981 Declaration. Leiden & Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
Lönnqvist J, Moring J, Henriksson M (2014). Hoitoon Ohjaaminen. In: Lönnqvist J et al (eds) Psykiatria. Helsinki, Duodecim.
Meyerson D (1998) On Being One’s Own Person. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1(4):447–466. CrossRef
MI Principles (Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care), A/RES/46/119, 75th plenary meeting, 17 December 1991.
Nowak M (1993) U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary. Kehl and Strasbourg, N.P. Engel Publisher.
Nussbaum MC (2011) Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. CrossRef
Nussbaum MC (2008) Liberty of Conscience. In Defence of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality. New York, Basic Books.
Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Oshana M (2007) Autonomy and the Question of Authenticity. Social Theory & Practice 33(3):411–429. CrossRef
Partch KJ (1981) Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms. In: Henkin L (ed) The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, Columbia University Press, pp 209–245.
Peele R, Chodoff, P (2009) Involuntary Hospitalization and Deinstitutionalization. In: Bloch S and Green SA (eds) Psychiatric Ethics, 4th edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 211–228. CrossRef
Peroni L (2014) Deconstructing ‘Legal’ Religion in Strasbourg. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 3(2):235–257. CrossRef
Petkoff, P (2012) Forum Internum and Forum Externum in Canon Law and Public International Law with a Particular Reference to the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Religion & Human Rights 7(3):183–214 CrossRef
Radden J (2011) On Delusion. London and New York, Routledge.
Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) Jacobs, White & Ovey. The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Roberts G (1991) Delusional Belief Systems and Meaning in Life: A Preferred Reality? British Journal of Psychiatry 159 suppl.(14):19–28. CrossRef
Sass LA (1994) The Paradoxes of Delusion. Wittgenstein, Schreber, and the Schizoprenic Mind. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.
Scanlon T (1972) A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(2):204–226.
Scheinin M (2000) Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion. Studia Theologica 54(1):5–18. CrossRef
Sen A (2009) The Idea of Justice. London, Allen Lane.
Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.
Sims A (1997) Commentary on “Spiritual Experience and Psychopathology”. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 4(1):79–81. CrossRef
Slotte P (2015) International Law and Freedom of Religion and Belief: Origins, Presuppositions and Structure of the Protection Framework. In: Ferrari S (ed), Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion. Abingdon and New York, Routledge, pp 103–117.
Slotte P (2012[2010]) The Religious and the Secular in European Human Rights Discourse. Finnish yearbook of international law 21:231–286.
Slotte P (2011) What Is a Man if He Has Words But Has No Deeds? Some Remarks on the European Convention of Human Rights. In: Brunsveld N and Trigg R (eds) Religion in the Public Sphere: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the European Society for Philosophy of Religion, pp 259–271. (Ars Disputandi Supplement Series, Vol. 5).
Stenlund M (2013) Is There a Right to Hold a Delusion? Delusions as a Challenge for Human Rights Discussion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16(4):829–843. CrossRef
Stephens GL, Graham G (2007) The Delusional Stance. In: Chung MC, Fulford KWM, Graham G (eds) Reconceiving Schizophrenia. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 193–215.
Szasz T (1990) Law and Psychiatry: The Problems that will not go away. J Mind Behav 11(3–4):557–563.
Tahzib BG (1996) Freedom of Religion or Belief. Ensuring Effective International Legal Protection. Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Taylor PM (2005) Freedom of Religion. UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Tiihonen J (2014) Oikeuspsykiatria. In: Lönnqvist J et al (eds) Psykiatria. Helsinki, Duodecim, pp 697–715.
Wagner LC, King M (2005) Existential Needs of People with Psychotic Disorders in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil. The British Journal of Psychiatry 186:141–145. CrossRef
Whelan D (2010) Indivisible Human Rights. A History. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Widdershoven GAM, Ruissen A, van Balkom A, et al. (2017) Competence in Chronic Mental Illness: The Relevance of Practical Wisdom. J Med Ethics 43:1–5. CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Forum Internum Revisited: Considering the Absolute Core of Freedom of Belief and Opinion in Terms of Negative Liberty, Authenticity, and Capability
Authors
Mari Stenlund
Pamela Slotte
Publication date
12-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Human Rights Review / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1524-8879
Electronic ISSN: 1874-6306
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-018-0512-8

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Human Rights Review 4/2018 Go to the issue

Book Review

Race and America’s Long War by Nikhil Pal Singh

Book Review

Death, Beauty, Struggle: Untouchable Women Create the World by Margaret Trawick

Book Review

The Death Penalty in China: Policy, Practice, and Reform Edited by Bin Liang and Hong Lu

Book Review Essay

Human Rights and U.S. Immigration Policy: Deportation, Foster Care, and Belonging

Book Review

Power and Principle: The Politics of International Criminal Courts by Christopher Rudolph

Book Review

The Modes of Human Rights Literature: Towards a Culture without Borders by Michael Galchinsky

Premium Partner