The system of protection of persons with severe psychiatric illnesses in practice shows serious weaknesses, especially when it comes to the coordination of institutions, supervision after hospitalization and the availability of support services in the community. Although laws and strategic documents exist, the interlocutors of the morning program "Colors of the Morning" point out that their implementation is often lacking, and reactions come only after the incident.
Deputy Ombudsman Snežana Mijušković assesses that the problem is long-standing and that responsibility is often transferred from one institution to another, which is why, as she states, the formation of an interdepartmental expert body that would have a clear mandate and obligation of coordination has been recommended.
"We must not allow the ping-pong ball to be moved. The social welfare sector cannot be responsible for psychiatric patients who leave, for example, Dobrota and then are transferred. So, we lack a whole range of different services in the system so that these people can continue their quality life in the community. There can be no delay here, because we do not know what may happen tomorrow and what trigger may be the one that will produce a far more serious consequence. And after that consequence, we just conclude that we did not have that, we did not have that. So, there must be an urgent reaction," said Mijušković.
She emphasizes that after discharge from health institutions, there is often no adequate monitoring system, especially when it comes to regular therapy and support for families who in most cases bear the burden of care alone, and that without the development of community services, there is no permanent solution.
Lawyer Snežana Mićanović points to the delicate legal boundary between protecting the rights of people with mental illnesses and community safety.
"Freedoms and rights are not absolute and can only be restricted in the event that those freedoms and rights are harmed by someone else. That risk must be specific. Only in the event that there was a direct danger to the life of that person or another person whom that person threatened, can we restrict their freedom by taking them to a psychiatric institution for preventive medical care first, and then a professional service, or a medical team, will determine whether it is necessary to place that person in an appropriate health institution. In some places, deprivation of liberty in the sense of ordering detention is the last option, precisely because of this respect for rights and freedoms, some form of supervision of these persons is less common," explains Mićanović.
Who is responsible for continuous supervision and whether the announced formation of an interdepartmental body will bring about concrete and permanent change, so that the system acts preventively, and not only when serious consequences occur - remains, according to the interlocutors, a key question.
Bonus video:
