Topic 2DQ2_PSY623

.docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

623

Subject

Medicine

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by Desi_89

Analyze if inmates should be able to refuse mental health treatment. Currently, when may an inmate be forced to be provided mental health treatment? How could you fashion a treatment plan for noncompliant suicidal inmate? Justify your answers with scholarly research. I believe that inmates should refuse mental health treatment, when deemed necessary; however when an inmate is showing signs of suicidal threats or self-injurious behavior and/or display of signs and/or symptoms of mental health illness or emotional distress then mental health treatment should occur with proper procedure. In Washington vs. Harper, 215 a case arising out of a prisoner’s refusal of psychiatric medication, the scope of that liberty interest was established ( Washington V. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) , n.d.) . Before a prisoner could be compelled to receive medication against his or her will, the prison system in Washington offered extensive “administrative” security measures. After denying those safeguards, a full “adversarial” hearing must take place before any prisoner can receive treatment against their will. In order to protect patients from the “very disruptive nature” of anti-psychotic drug treatment, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the State could administer anti-psychotic drugs to a mentally competent non-consenting prisoner only if the State could demonstrate through “clear, persuasive and persuasive evidence” that the use of anti-psychotic drugs was “necessary and effective” for the purpose of advancing a compelling state interest in a court hearing in which the prisoner was granted the full range of “adversarial procedural protections” pursuant to the Due Process Clause. This lawsuit was brought by a convicted felon named Mr. Harper. Harper claimed that the prison couldn’t give him medication until he could prove his mental competency in an “adversarial” court. He also claimed that even mentally incompetent patients can’t be medicated unless a fact finder finds that they would consent to the treatment if they were competent. The US Supreme Court ruled that the prison’s policies were constitutional. To understand why the Court approved the policy, you first need to understand that the Court of Justice allows expert decision making to be used as a substitute for an adversarial process. When considering whether to grant anti-psychotic medication to a prisoner, the Washington Supreme Court determined what evidence would support such a decision, as well as what procedural guarantees would be necessary to establish those facts. The court ruled that Harper had a reasonable expectation that he would not be subject to medication if he chose not to take it. However, the court held that the prison’s administrative proceedings adequately protected that liberty interest by requiring that a psychiatrist certify that therapy was appropriate. That’s why the Court has adopted expert decision making as an alternative
to an “adversarial hearing.” The Supreme Court held that prisoners’ rights to decline anti- psychotic care were limited by the conditions in which they were incarcerated. As one example, the Court found that the prison’s pharmaceutical program was “conceived with the purpose of diagnosing and treating convicted felons with the expectation that they will gradually improve to the point of being able to function satisfactorily in a normal prison environment. According to ( Washington V. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) , n.d.), the Court weighed the interests of the jail against the interests of the prisoner. The Court found that the interest of the jail in returning the prisoner to general prison and commuting his sentence was outweighed by the interest of the prison in preserving the prisoner’s due process rights. The role of the prison psychiatric expert decision maker is to ensure that the prisoner is not mentally ill or dangerous and that the medicine is suitable for remedying those conditions. It is the duty of the jail psychiatric expert decision maker to ensure that the due process rights of the prisoner are not violated. Although the Court is reluctant to interfere with concerns of prison security and safety, expert decision making satisfies those interests. As a non-prisoner, a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment is much more restricted than a prisoner’s. If a condition poses a risk to the health and well-being of other prisoners, such as a contagious illness or a treatable psychiatric condition, a prisoner is not allowed to refuse testing or treatment. In certain circumstances, a prisoner may be forced to take medical treatment if it is necessary to prevent long-term health problems. If treatment is necessary to keep prison discipline in place, religious objections may be overruled. Because mental health is so closely linked to criminal behavior, the public health system stands to gain a lot from improving mental health outcomes among prisoners, especially in terms of reducing recidivism costs (Reingle & Connell, 2014). Systematic suicide screening with a well-constructed suicide screening questionnaire capturing well-known risk factors identifies most of the prisoners at risk if used properly. Identification and follow-up mental health assessments set the scene for prevention, follow-up, and treatment. A multi-faceted suicide prevention program not only saves lives but also provides the most effective defense against liability litigation.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help