Collegialism, therapy and mediation – the contribution of experts in Swedish mental health law

Results The possibility for APs to examine each case is limited by shortage of time and resources. Furthermore, APs may have to take into account an out-of-court, professional relationship to the treating psychiatrist (CP). We find that conversation between APs and CPs frequently are carried out in a "collegiate repertoire". These circumstances inhibit a detailed critical examination of the CP's application for compulsory care, which in turn helps explaining why APs seldom assess cases different from CPs. In the hearings, APs go beyond their official role by giving medical advice to citizen parties (patients). Also, applying a mediating repertoire, APs attempt to resolve clinical conflicts between CPs and citizen parties. As a result, the legal conflict at stake is downplayed.