Fri att missbruka
tvingad till vård. En argumentationsanalys av 70-talets debatt om tvång i socialvården
CoercionAddictionEthicsTreatmentArgumentSocial sciencesSamhällsvetenskaperSocial changesTheory of social workSociala förändringarTeorier om socialt arbeteSocial problems and welfareNational insuranceSociala problemSocial välfärdSocialförsäkringSocial SciencesLaw and Political Science
Can coercive care be justified against drug and alcohol addicts or should treatment be offered on a strictly voluntary basis? This was one of the central questions debated in Sweden during the 70's when the development of a new social legislation, The Social Services Act (Socialtjänstlagen), took place. The first aim of this thesis was to analyse whether the arguments that were presented both in favour for and against coercion were sound. To achieve this, a method for analysing arguments was employed, where a sound argument is defined as acceptable, relevant and adequate. The analysed material consists of both official government reports and books of influential debaters. Ten arguments were analysed, five in favour of coercion and five against. It is concluded that three of the arguments meet the relevant criteria for soundness. The strongest arguments in favour of coercion claims that it is needed to achieve favourable treatment results and that it is necessary to prevent serious health injuries or death. The strongest argument against coercion holds that it is demeaning and inadequate in the long run. The second aim of this thesis was to analyse the arguments from an ethical standpoint. For this purpose four moral principles were used; respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. The conclusion is that the central conflict among the sound arguments exists between respect for autonomy and nonmaleficence. Whether coercion is regarded as justified or not is to a large extent determined by how one values these two principles in relation to one another.