A opinião dos psiquiatras acerca das mudanças que ocorreram nos critérios de interdição após a instauração do estatuto do deficiente

Abstract

Interdiction Civil is the legal instrument responsible for determining that a citizen who does not have conditions to manage his own acts of civil life can have his civil capacity preserved and represented by an individual who aims at the best interests of that interdict, who in this case will be the curator. People with mental disorders could not have the proper discernment to exercise their acts of civil life due to the loss of their discernment expressed by the symptoms they present. As such, the psychiatrist is the most appropriate professional to carry out the assessment and determine this capacity for discernment. The ban is defined by the criteria described in the civil code and which have undergone changes with the introduction of the law for the inclusion of the disabled. This study aimed to research the knowledge and opinion of psychiatrists about the changes that occurred in the interdiction criteria in the Civil Code after the implementation of the Statute of the disabled. This study is cross-sectional, in which two distinct samples were collected, one with the number of 98 individuals at the Brazilian Congress of Psychiatry of 2019 of a non-probabilistic nature for convenience and the other with 40 psychiatrists registered with the Regional Council of Medicine of the State of Paraíba. The results showed that only 23% of psychiatrists in total, 25% in Paraíba and 22% in Congress had adequate knowledge about global interdiction criteria. Also showed that those who were most interested in forensic psychiatry, performed forensics and had training in forensic psychiatry had more knowledge about the changes in the interdiction criteria. When associated with the individual characteristics of psychiatrists to each specific disorder, it was observed that for each situation these characteristics varied. Still on the opinion of psychiatrists, it was observed that he opposes these changes because he believes that it may hinder the performance of the expert process and lead to technical inaccuracies. Finally, it is possible to conclude that, in general, Brazilian psychiatrists have little knowledge about the changes in the interdiction criteria resulting from the establishment of the status of the disabled and that those who have knowledge express their divergent positions regarding the changes.