Restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment

In the first chapter of our study, the concepts of restriction of freedom for the purpose of protection and compulsory treatment are defined. In addition, explanations on Swiss Civil Law are made. General information on the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment in Turkish Civil Law is given. The purpose of the article is explained. In addition, the history of the subject is examined. Afterward, ethical issues related to the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment are evaluated and the problem of legitimacy is examined. The differences between the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and the other guardianship institutions are determined. Moreover, it is examined comparatively with other guardianship institutions. In the continuation of the first chapter, the concepts used in the analysis of the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment are given. These concepts are medical intervention, informed consent, treatment refusal, and medical malpractice. This section provides information about these concepts. In addition, the role of these concepts in the practice of compulsory treatment is mentioned. In the second chapter, the articles of the Turkish Civil Code related to the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment are examined. Also, the conditions in this article are explained. The first of these conditions is the existence of one of the reasons for the restriction of freedom for the purpose of protection. These reasons are mental illness or mental weakness, alcohol and drug addiction, serious contagious diseases, and vagrancy. In our study, we evaluate these conditions. These conditions are examined under the Constitution, laws, and the ECHR. Other requirements are dangerousness, maturity, and the inability to otherwise provide personal protection. Explanations and evaluations are also made on these issues. In the third chapter, the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment in international regulations is examined. The examples of Germany, USA, England, and Switzerland are examined. Finally, the decisions taken in the international arena on this issue are reviewed and evaluations are made with examples from the ECHR decisions. With this study, the lack of legal regulations on the restriction of freedom for protection purposes and compulsory treatment in Turkey has emerged again. First, a Mental Health Code should be enacted in Turkey. The compulsory hospitalization and compulsory treatment of the mentally ill should be placed on a legal basis. Moreover, regulations should be made regarding alcohol and drug addiction. In the fight against addictions, which have increased considerably recently, it is necessary to work in cooperation with addicts. When we consider communicable diseases, our deficiencies and gaps in the law have emerged with the COVID-19 process. A current law regulating this issue should be enacted. This law should be implemented in the compulsory treatment of epidemic diseases. Finally, vague concepts such as vagrancy, dangerousness, and maturity need to be regulated in more detail in the law. There should be no differences in opinion on this matter. In our study, all these issues were discussed, and we tried to contribute to this field with our views and evaluations.