Abstract
Forensic mental health services (FMHS) involve restricting certain individual rights to uphold or promote other ethical values - the restriction of liberty in various forms is justified with reference to health and safety of the individual and the community. The tension that arises from this has been construed as a hallmark of the practice and an ever-present quandary for practitioners. Stating this ethical dilemma upfront is a common point of departure for many texts discussing FMHS. But do we run the risk of missing something important if setting the ethical scene rather than exploring it? This paper draws on interviews with three types of interested parties in mental health law proceedings - patients, psychiatrists and public defenders, and seeks to tease out what values are enacted when they describe and discuss experiences of FMHS and court proceedings. In doing so, we find emphasized values such as acceptance, telling it like it is, atonement, normality, and ensuring the future. We find that well-delineated and separate values are not necessarily the basis for decisions. We also find potential for explanation and guidance in bringing ethical discourse closer to everyday practice.