The Judicialization of Psychiatric Diagnoses: Between Freedom of Conscience and Medical Autonomy

This research addresses the influence of judicialization on medical autonomy in psychiatric diagnosis, focusing on the complex interaction between law and clinical practice. It is contextualized in the growing demand for protection of the rights of mental health patients, especially in view of the inherent ethical, legal and social challenges. The problem focuses on the conflicts and tensions between the autonomy of mental health professionals and the judicial decisions that may interfere in this field. The main objective was to analyze how judicialization impacts medical autonomy, considering the applicable legal, bioethical and jurisprudential foundations. Methodologically, the neoperspectivist Giftedean paradigm was adopted, which values the coexistence of absolute and relative truth, combined with theories of law, bioethics and medical sociology. The hypothetical-deductive method was used to systematize the analysis, and a rigorous narrative bibliographic and documentary review was conducted, with consultation of the SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases, using descriptors such as “medical autonomy”, “judicialization of mental health” and “patient rights”. Forty-five high-impact studies were analyzed. The main findings indicate that judicialization, although necessary for the protection of rights, can either restrict or strengthen medical autonomy, depending on the context and interdisciplinary articulation. The conclusions highlight the need for integrated guidelines and greater dialogue between the areas. Gaps in empirical studies and limitations in methodological scope were identified. The contributions involve theoretical and practical advances, promoting greater justice and inclusion in psychiatric care. The added value lies in the provision of subsidies for public policies and improvement of clinical practice.