Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article propose d’explorer les différentes formes de contrainte qui s’exercent dans le champ de l’intervention auprès des toxicomanes. Nous proposons dans un premier temps de définir l’intervention thérapeutique en insistant sur le fait que toute intervention implique nécessairement l’exercice d’un pouvoir ; d’où l’importance d’étudier le caractère contraignant de l’intervention en toxicomanie. Nous proposons ensuite de distinguer les différents niveaux de contrainte qui peuvent s’exercer sur les personnes manifestant des problèmes de dépendance dans un contexte de soins thérapeutiques. Trois formes de contrainte seront tour à tour exposées, soit la contrainte judiciaire, la contrainte institutionnelle et la contrainte relationnelle. Le caractère coercitif de l’intervention thérapeutique auprès de cette clientèle se manifeste alors par une combinaison variable de ces trois niveaux de contrainte. Ultimement, cet article vise à établir des repères nous permettant de mieux réfléchir aux enjeux éthiques et cliniques qui sont liés au caractère contraignant de la prise en charge thérapeutique des toxicomanes.
Mots-clés :
- traitement,
- intervention,
- toxicomanie,
- dépendance,
- contrainte,
- pouvoir,
- obligation de soins,
- Canada
Abstract
Objectives: This article is exploring different forms of constraint that are exerted in the field of drug addiction treatment. The objective of this article is to establish benchmarks and to stimulate reflection about the ethical and clinical implications of those constraints in the field of drug addiction treatment.
Methods: This article is presenting a critical review of different forms of constraint that can be exerted in Canada in regard to the treatment of drug addiction. In the first section of the article, a definition of therapeutic intervention is proposed, that includes the dimension of power, which justifies the importance of considering the coercive aspects of treatment. The second section, which represents the core section of the paper, is devoted to the presentation of different levels of constraint that can be distinguished in regard to drug addicts who are under treatment.
Results: Three levels of constraint are exposed: judicial constraint, institutional constraint and relational constraint. The coercive aspect of treatment can then be recognized as a combination of all tree levels of constraint. Judicial constraint refers to any form of constraint in which the court or the judge is imposing or recommending treatment. This particular level of constraint can take different forms, such as therapeutic remands, conditions of a probation order, conditions of a conditional sentence of imprisonment, and coercive treatment such as the ones provided through drug courts. Institutional constraint refers to any form of constraint exerted within any institutional setting, such as correctional facilities and programs offered in community. Correctional facilities being limited by their own specific mission, it might have a major impact on the way the objectives of treatment are defined. Those limitations can then be considered as a form of constraint, in which drug users don’t have much space to express their personal needs. Finally, relational constraint refers to any form of constraint in which the drug addict might be coerced to treatment under the pressure of people from the immediate environment, such as members of family, friends or employers. Even if this form of constraint is not as obvious as the ones exerted by court and correctional facilities, it has to be considered by practitioners who are evaluating the motivation of drug addicts under treatment.
Conclusion: Considering the diversity of constraints that are exerted on drug addicts who are under treatment, it appears that we should be always aware of the ethical and clinical challenges facing practitioners every day. The recognition of those constraints can also help to understand how important it is to consider the institutional and social context in which treatment is being provided.
Keywords:
- Treatment,
- intervention,
- drug addiction,
- constraint,
- power,
- coercive treatment,
- Canada
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Acier, D., Nadeau, L. et Landry, M. (2008). La rémission sans traitement : état de la question pour une consommation problématique d’alcool. Annales médico-psychologiques, 166, 727-734.10.1016/j.amp.2006.02.009 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Allard, P., Lyons, T. et Elliott, R. (2011). Jugement déficient : évaluation de l’opportunité des tribunaux de traitement de la toxicomanie, en réponse à l’usage de drogue au Canada. Toronto : Réseau juridique canadien VIH/SIDA.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts : A Critical Review. New York : National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bérard, F., Vacheret, M. et Lemire, G. (2013). Risk Management in the Correctional System of Canada : A Problematic Model. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 251-271.10.1111/hojo.12009 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Blais, L. (2005). Pouvoir et domination chez Foucault. Balises pour (re)penser le rapport à l’autre dans l’intervention. Dans A. Beaulieu (dir.), Michel Foucault et le contrôle social (p. 159-172). Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Boyd, N., Millard, C. J. et Webster, C. D. (1985). Heroin Treatment in British Columbia, 1976-1984 : Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 27(2), 195-208.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Brochu, S. et Landry, M. (2010). Les tribunaux spécialisés dans le traitement de la toxicomanie au Québec. RISQ-INFO, 18(1), 1-3.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Brochu, S. et Plourde, C. (2012). L’offre de services aux adultes toxicomanes sous le coup de mesures judiciaires : un jeu de murs et de ponts. Dans M. Landry, S. Brochu et C. Patenaude (dir.), L’intégration des services en toxicomanie (p. 107-130). Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Castaignède, J. (1998). La prise en charge des abuseurs sexuels par le droit pénal. Dans R. Cario et J. C. Héraut (dir.), Les abuseurs sexuels : quel(s) traitement(s) (p. 19-38). Paris : L’Harmattan.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Centre canadien de lutte contre l’alcoolisme et les toxicomanies (2007). FAQ sur les tribunaux de traitement de la toxicomanie. Ottawa : CCLAT.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Chiodo, A. L. (2001). Sentencing Drug-Addicted Offenders and the Toronto Drug Court. Criminal Law Quarterly, 45, 53-100.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ciavaldini, A. (2003). Violences sexuelles : les soins sous contrôle judiciaire. Paris : In Press Éditions.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cortoni, F. et Lafortune, D. (2009). Le traitement correctionnel fondé sur des données probantes : une recension. Criminologie, 42(1), 61-89.
10.7202/029808ar
Google Scholar
Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Dubost, J. (1987). L’intervention psychosociologique. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Facy, F., Brochu et S., Simon, F. (1996). L’injonction thérapeutique à l’égard des toxicomanes : comparaison des systèmes français et québécois. Criminologie, 29(2), 115-140.10.7202/017392ar
Google Scholar
Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fischer, B., Roberts, J. V. et Kirst, M. (2002). Compulsory Drug Treatment in Canada : Historical Origins and Recent Developments. European Addiction Research, 8, 61-68.10.1159/000052056 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Foucault, M. (1977). Vérité et pouvoir. L’Arc, 77, 16-26.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Giffen, P. J., Endicott, S. et Lambert, S. (1991). Panic and Indifference : The Politics of Canada’s Drug Laws. Ottawa : Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hannah-Moffat, K. et Maurutto, P. (2012). Shifting and Targeted Forms of Penal Governance : Bail, Punishment and Specialized Courts. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 201-219.10.1177/1362480612443302 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hurtubise, R. (1985). La psychothérapie comme logique de production de l’individu : lorsque le social est au coeur même d’un voyage au fond de soi. Sociologie et sociétés, 17(1), 73-82. 10.7202/001358ar
Google Scholar
Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Klingemann, H. et Carter-Sobell, L. (2007). Promoting Self-Change from Addictive Behaviors. Practical Implications for Policy, Prevention, and Treatment. New York : Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-71287-1 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lavielle, B. (1999). Surveiller et soigner les agresseurs sexuels : un des défis posés par la loi du 17 juin 1998. Revue de science criminelle, 1, 35-48.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lehalle, S., Landreville, P. et Charest, M. (2009). L’emprisonnement avec sursis au Québec : impact de l’arrêt Proulx. Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale, 51(3), 277-302.10.3138/cjccj.51.3.277 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- McKinnon, C. (1995). Le droit des délinquants à refuser un traitement. Forum : recherche sur l’actualité correctionnelle, 7(3), 45-47.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Moore, D. (2007). Criminal Artefacts : Governing Drugs and Users. Vancouver : University of British Columbia Press. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Motiuk, L. L. (2007). Situating Individualized Risk and Needs Assessment in the Prison Population Management Framework. Dans Risk Assessment and Risk Management : A Canadian Criminal Justice Perspective (p. 20-34). Vancouver : International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Orsi, M. M. et Brochu, S. (2009). Du sable dans l’engrenage : la motivation des clients sous contrainte judiciaire dans le traitement pour la toxicomanie. Drogues, santé et société, 8(2), 141-185.10.7202/044474ar
Google Scholar
Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Quirion, B. (2009). Le détenu responsable et autonome : la nouvelle cible de l’intervention correctionnelle au Canada. Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie, juillet-août 2009, 818-835.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Renaud, G. (1993). R. v. Fuller : Time to Brush Aside the Rule Prohibiting Therapeutic Remands ? Part II. Criminal Law Quarterly, 35, 157-193.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Renaud, G. (1992). R. v. Fuller : Time to Brush Aside the Rule Prohibiting Therapeutic Remands ? Part I. Criminal Law Quarterly, 35, 91-122.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Roberts, J. (2004). The Virtual Prison : Community Custody and the Evolution of Imprisonment. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511520976 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wexler, D. B. et Winick, B. J. (1996). Law in a Therapeutic Key : Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham (NC) : Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Winick, B. J. (2005). Civil Commitment : A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model. Durham (NC) : Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar