What Should Have Been Done? Documentary Sparks Debate on Mental Health Care and Family Burden

The documentary "What Should Have Been Done?" by director Tomoaki Fujino is resonating deeply with audiences, selling out independent film screenings during the summer blockbuster season. The film intimately portrays a family grappling with a daughter's 20-year struggle with schizophrenia and her medical-student parents' decision to conceal her illness rather than seek adequate treatment.

“

How should I help a friend who is now solely responsible for caring for her brother with schizophrenia?

The film's title, "What Should Have Been Done?" initially sounds like a regretful reflection, but it has become a present-day question for viewers. Post-screening discussions, facilitated by psychiatrists and feminist scholars, reveal a shared urgency. Audiences are seeking guidance on how to support friends with schizophrenic siblings, help those isolated by parental pressure, and what schools can do for families with multiple diagnoses.

Questions about managing long-term medication, preventing accidental discontinuation, and supporting individuals who refuse help and isolate themselves highlight a desperate need for collective solutions. The film underscores that in an era of increasing longevity, the burden of care cannot solely rest on family members, as interdependence is a fundamental human need.

“

There are many friends who have turned away from the world due to pressure from elite parents, and there are still people around me now, so how can I notice the signs well?

Central to the audience's concerns is the "duty of care" system mandated by South Korea's Mental Health Welfare Act. This system requires consent from a 'duty of care provider', typically a family member, for involuntary hospitalization, placing immense responsibility and potential blame on relatives. For years, patients and families have demanded its abolition, a call that was initially included in a draft of the third Basic Mental Health Plan but was later revised to focus on easing the burden rather than eliminating the system.

“

What can schools do when schizophrenia occurs sequentially in students and their families?

This revision led to protests, with mental health advocates declaring that plans excluding them were violent. Speakers at a subsequent parliamentary forum criticized the state for shifting all responsibility to families, leading to the disintegration of both patients and caregivers. They advocate for public responsibility in hospitalization decisions, deeming any mental health innovation that leaves the burden on families as deceptive. The fight to change the law continues, with a proposed amendment still pending in the National Assembly.

“

When the person in need refuses family help and chooses isolation, what should be done?