Abstract
The longitudinal evolution of 66 patients admitted between 1976 and 1986 at the Centre Hospitalier Robert-Giffard, and who have appealed their case before the Commission des Affaires Sociales (C.A.S.) was studied.
After a review of the literature, the authors compare the evolution of the patients whose appeal was accepted and who left the hospital against medical advice to those individuals whose appeal was rejected. The authors wanted to see if the first group of patients had a less favourable short-term and medium term evolution. From a study of the files and of the case notes prepared by the physicians for the C.A.S. hearings, the authors draw a profile of the typical individual of this group and they study the influence of 16 factors of dangerousness on the Commission's decisions.
The results show that the short and medium term evolution of the patients who have appealed their case before the Commission does not differ significantly in the area of dangerousness, whether their appeal was accepted or rejected. However, the length of stay of those patients who had to remain in hospital was significantly longer and that may be the reason why the period of time between their discharge and their re-hospitalization was afterwards much longer.
In light of these results, the authors comment on the importance given by the Commission to the legalistic rather than therapeutic aspects of cases.