An Argument Against Involuntary Hospitalization

Act Utilitarianism refers to the end result was achieved based on the premises that took you there. Rule Utilitarianism on the other hand, focuses more on the amount of happiness, it produces in most people, sort of majority rule but with happiness as its key component.

Receiving the death penalty is the worst and final penalty that the United States Justice System can administer, especially for those who are mentally ill. Many Americans are questioning the morality of executing mentally ill convicts, as well as the validity of the death penalty itself. These are the questions Americans should be asking, or at least putting some thought into. One might be surprised at how much knowledge one has about the death penalty and very surprised at the many things that are not often discussed. The following research will examine what the death penalty is, what constitutes mental illness, how people with mental illness do not always have knowledge of what they are receiving or doing, how people with mental illnesses do not all have access to quality treatment and rehabilitation, and finally, the cost to carry out the death penalty. Sentencing a mentally ill patient to death is unjust. The death penalty should not be applied to those with mental illness.

In today’s society, mental hospitals are still a potential solution for the mentally ill, but they are seeing a steady decline in incoming patients. Although there is still a need for the mentally ill to be admitted to mental institutions such as hospitals, the reality is that the heightened cost of treatment deters many potential patients. Instead, the mentally

Deinstitutionalization states that instead of allowing “a seriously mentally ill patient [to stay] indefinitely in state hospitals, public policy [requires] either treatment in the community or release into the community after brief periods of hospitalization” (Erickson and Erickson 25). This policy “assume[s] that mentally ill individuals [will] take prescribed medications and seek outpatient counseling” (Erickson and Erickson 25). This is problematic because as stated previously, severely mentally ill individuals are not likely to take medication regularly on their own or seek outpatient counseling either because they do not desire help though it is needed or because access to these services has an unreasonable wait list and they do not receive help in time. Being released from the hospital after receiving an insufficient amount of care is dangerous both for the individual being discharged because they can become a danger to themselves, and for the public because the individual can impose danger onto the people they come

Act utilitarianism says that an action is considered morally right when its outcome is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It directly produces the greatest overall good. While rule utilitarianism describes how the action which is considered morally right is the one which is covered by a rule. This rule should result in a “favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered.” Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of generally following a rule, while act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of individual actions. “Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism do not use the same methods to make moral evalutations.”

“Utilitarianism is the view that the supreme principle of morality is to act so as to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally” (Mill, 114). By ‘happiness’, this includes anything that is pleasurable and free of pain. Simply put, utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right, as long as it produces the greatest good for the most number of people (Peetush). The central point to this theory is that one must consider every consequence before taking any action. There are two classical forms of utilitarianism; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. “Rule utilitarianism is the idea that an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would

Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill is surrounded by continual controversy especially since mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary are on the rise. Some argue that anyone with a mental illness should not be permitted to purchase a firearm. And their contenders claim such a measure would “infringe upon their civil rights” and would result in discrimination towards the mentally ill (Barusch, 2015, p. 236). Society is angry seeing so many mentally ill homeless in their communities. Some blame it on the strict regulations defining who can be Baker Acted, as the mentally ill cannot be involuntarily committed unless they are an imminent danger to themselves or others. Socioeconomically challenged families have no choice but to sit back and wait until their relative is so ill that they become a danger to themselves or society before they can get the care he/she needs. At that point, often learning the illness has reached chronic proportions and may take a lifetime to cure. They argue that the seriously disabled should be committed “regardless of their dangerousness” (Barusch, 2015, p. 244). It just seems

The definition of being considered “Mentally Ill” by law is defined as “one who as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the

1. Act utilitarianism has two different versions. One versions says that an act is right if and only if its actual consequences would contain at least as much utility as of those of any other act open to the agent. Another version claims that an act is right if and only its expected utility is at least as great as that of any alternative. However rule utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism in that rule-utilitarianism does not assess each act solely by its utility.

the agent. So the act-utilitarian judges the ethics of each act independently. According to rule-utilitarianism, the right action is the one that is in accordance with the rule that, if generally followed, would have

The goal of an act utilitarian is to maximize a person’s overall happiness in the universe. With an act utilitarian the goal will be to “Maximize pleasure and minimize pain” (Waller, 2005, p.49). An act utilitarian says that people could do that and they would not only make everyone happier but they would also be doing what is morally right. An act utilitarian doesn’t have conflicts over any action being right or wrong.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory where people do what brings about the best consequences. There are two different types of Utilitarianism rule and act. rule Utilitarianism simply means a rule or law is good if it brings about the best for the people. Act Utilitarianism is an action is good if it brings about the most pleasure for the majority of the people. Figuring out what the best action is as simple as doing an easy math equitation. Even though some people may not be truly happy with the decision if the majority of people are happy than the right decision was made.

The patient's judgment, insight and impulse control remains poor. He still unable to provide care for himself and still threatening to run into the busy traffic as he wants the fast running cars hit him to die. He admitted trouble falling asleep, feeling helpless, hopeless and worthless. He said "I want to disappear in this world, my father lied to me, it’s too much for me to stay alive, I can't take it anymore". He insisted that his life is not worth living, still presents disorganized thought process and presents no insight to the consequences of his actions. He still refused to contract for safety, remains a danger to self. He needs a continuous inpatient psychiatric hospital level of care as he refuses top contract for safety.

Also, breaking promise of rightness in situation is acceptable. According to the textbook the difference between the act and rule utilitarianism are Act utilitarianism believes person’s action is morally right if the consequence will lead to happiness. Also, It is action of particular person and single outcome, the costs followed straight from individual at, and the breaking promise will be right in some situation. Rule utilitarianism is following the rule; the result generally followed by the supreme, and will be general

Act utilitarian focuses on the effects of that’s individuals actions, while rule utilitarian focus on the effects of types of actions example, killing or stealing. Utilitarian’s believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things example, such as pleasure and happiness, in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things such as pain and unhappiness. They reject moral codes that consist of commands that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarian think that is what makes a