Difference Between Mental Health Act 2007 And 2007

Through this essay it has become evident that’s mental health nurses need to have a full understanding of the mental health act 2007 and the changes it has bought to this area of care. They need to be aware of how necessary it is for the recovery of consumers that they themselves and their family and carers be involved in their mental treatment. Recovery-oriented services need to be assessed by the nurse and the consumer to ensure an individualised and personal recovery journey. Nurses will need to tailer their care to each consumer as each individual has different and experience and supports. Nurses need to remain unbiased in their care delivery and not be influenced by the stigma that surrounds mental illness. They need to work in partnership

| The Mental Capacity Act 2005 prevents people who lack mental capacity from being mistreated or wilfully neglected.

The key legislations include , Human Rights Act 1998 , Mental Capacity Act 2005 , Adults and Incapacity Act 2000 , Mental Health Act 1995 , Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and Carers Equal Opportunities Act 2004.Each and every

Article 4 of the act intrigues to me because of the language used to change the fact that it could come across as discrimination. Impairment in other words means ‘abnormality’ which could come across as belligerent to those who suffer with psychological disorders, this then would present them as ‘lesser’ and therefore more likely to prejudice comments. However the word ‘impairment’ implies that someone isn’t able to lead a normal life and in some cases that is untrue. Recently the government has canvassed through radio and posters to convince the public that there is nothing wrong with having any psychological disorders, and these people shouldn’t be marginalised. Some people use the word ‘mental disorder’ when describing someone with a mental health problem because it again leads these people to be marginalised and have prejudice thoughts about them all the time. Additionally, these certain people do have amazing talents, have successful lives and have a normal life because their society has been taught different.

“One of my biggest struggles with dealing with my ‘problems’ was being able to pay for help. At some points I thought the process to receive help was more draining than my illness itself” (May). Mental illness has plagued millions of people in the United States alone, and with the stigma it carried, getting the help that is needed is not always possible. With Proposition 63 in California it is speculated that with proper aid from the government and community those with mental health problems will be better suited to face their demons. That by having a budget to help those desperately in need we can better the lives of those who struggle with mental illness.

It must be remembered that just because a person has a mental health diagnosis or is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 does not necessarily mean that they lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. The MCA applies to people with mental health problems only when they experience a mental health problem that affects their ability to make a particular decision. For some people, the ability to make certain decisions is permanently affected as a result of their experience of mental illness. However, many people who experience mental health problems are capable of making all of their own decisions. For others, the ability to make some decisions is affected occasionally and only for short periods.

However, many individuals who may be mentally infirm or were committed to a psychiatric facility could keep on being fit for directing and controlling their own medical care, including the privilege to consent to treatment or to refuse treatment; legal requirements vary with jurisdiction, so physicians should be generally familiar with the applicable mental health legislation in their

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004: Problems and Prospects by Christine M. Litschgea and Michael G. Vaughn, is a research article whose focus is three-fold. First, the researchers reviewed the literature available on the components that have influenced the considerable increases of incarcerated persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Secondly, they analyzed the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (MIOTCRA), and evaluated if, since its inception, has reduced the problems associated with incarcerated persons with SMI. Thirdly, they offered recommendations about policy improvements; how to decrease the number of SMI persons imprisoned.

In order to properly explore and answer the question that has been posed, the term mental illness must first be defined. Mental illness is the inability to properly control or express behaviors, emotions, or the person’s beliefs. This can affect any individual for any number of reasons. For instance, the illness may be contracted later in life due to stress, physical or even emotional damage. Treatment for these disorders today might seem practical, efficient and humane. This was not always the case for patients suffering from mental disorders. In the earliest forms, treatment for mental illnesses could be deemed barbaric, morbid and morally misguided. Patients who were admitted to mental institutions would be given shelter. This was an opportunity to observe the symptoms and to diagnose the problem that had been presented to the medical experts. Surely while being kept in these institutions the shelter that was provided to the patients were healthy and deemed acceptable right?

Mental health illnesses have been around since interrelated relationships have been present in society. The treatment of this illness has evolved immensely throughout history. Early on, those who were mentally ill were demonized and thought to be an all mighty evil, which had the ability to be passed on to others. Due to this ideology, many people shunned, and banished those who were thought to be mentally handicapped. In order to protect society from these “beasts” many people imprisoned mentally ill individuals and were stripped of the ability to live their lives. Fortunately, as society progressed and different ways of treating the mentally ill were established through scientific advancements. Along with these advances, treatment for

Societal attitudes, legislation and government changes are some of the main factors which contribute to the way in which the law is developed and enforced within the arena of mental health. The legal framework in which the health and social care practitioner works is complex, and there are many different laws, powers and accountabilities which need to be taken into consideration when working with individuals who have poor mental health. This assignment therefore aims to identify and critically evaluate the complexity of Law within the mental health arena in which the health and social care practitioner works. The Cambridge dictionary defines law as “a rule, usually made by a government that is used to order the way in which society behaves”

Non-declared mental health facilities should have appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that if restraint is required within non-declared mental health units, such as Transitional Behavioural Assessment and Intervention Service (T-BASIS) units, then any necessary consent is obtained consistent with the NSW Guardianship Act 1987.

History is thought to be the past, but the past influences the present in many ways. Insane, lunatic, mentally deranged, madness, madman, crazy, mentally disturbed, troubled, these were just a few terms used to label those with mental illness and these labels are at times still used in society today. Although the shift of viewing insanity as a diagnosable condition did not reduce the use of such terms in 19th Century England, there was a historical event that changed the way those who suffered from mental illness were seen. This historical event came in 1845 with the enactment of the Lunatics Act and the County Asylums Act which were dependent on each other. Now, in order to comprehend what these Acts did it is important to first understand

The law pertaining psychiatric injury has been considered extensively by the courts over the years. Following the rulings in early case law, two general preconditions for recovery under psychiatric injury have been established. The first hurdle that a plaintiff claiming damages must establish is that his or her suffering is not merely grief or stress but a recognisable psychiatric illness (expert medical evidence will be required to establish this). The second hurdle initially involved the plaintiff proving that the psychiatric illness arose from a reasonable fear of injury to themselves. This requirement was later rejected and replaced by the Court of Appeal in Hambrook v Stokes Bros. Following this case, the plaintiff now has to prove

In contrast, the Mental Capacity Act (2015) provides a unitary legal framework for the regulation of substitute decisions where persons are unable to make one or more decisions for themselves because of a temporary, permanent or fluctuating ‘impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain’ (section 2(1) of the Mental Capacity Act (2015)). Importantly, the Mental Capacity Act (2015) does not cover those decisions involving the compulsory assessment and treatment in hospital of people with Emergent Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA (2015)) Service 1813 serious mental health problems to protect their health or safety or that of others. In England and Wales, substitute decisions of this type are covered by the 1983