Mental Illness Of The United States

Furthermore, tremendous advances have been made in the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses in the recent decades. Nowadays, someone with a mental illness is treated with respect, just like every other person, because, in fact, everyone is equal. Society’s goals today are to treat and support the mentally ill individuals enough so they can live in

Psychiatric care 80 years ago was quite different to how standards are set today. The cases of Youngberg v. Romeo and Wyatt v. Stickney both played big roles in developing standards that help maintain humane conditions in institutions nowadays. Both cases played a part in determining the rights of involuntarily committed patients under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before both cases, patients may have been living in inhumane conditions, refused the right to psychiatric care, and neglected proper habilitation. But now, standards have been set and it’s been deemed appropriate that involuntarily committed patients’ rights must be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment with such standards.

A majority of the book involves an examination of the debate between advocates for patients’ right to adequate treatment and advocates for patient’s civil rights. Another one of Earley’s major arguments was that jails were not suitable environments for individuals with SMI. He found that inmates were being shuffled between jails, psychiatric hospitals, and courts. Through his observations, and interviews, Earley determined that jails were not equipped to treat individuals with SMI. Thus, these individuals were never actually being rehabilitated. Overall, Earley’s arguments were consistent with the idea that individuals with SMI should be receiving consistent treatment. His personal experiences with his son seemed to have a significant influence on his beliefs about individuals with SMI, as he assumed that individuals with SMI did not have insight into severity of their own mental illnesses. His arguments mostly stemmed from his role as a parent struggling to navigate the mental health and criminal justice systems as a result of a crime committed by his son.

The MHA sets out the required number and special expertise of mental health practitioners needed to enforce the Act, the role of the adult mental health professional (AMHP), the rights of relatives to be involved in decisions, and the rights of patients to appeal. The details of the sections under the act can be found in the NHS health and social care law and policy document from 1900 to 2015. The commonly use ones are listed below: Section 2: Admission for up to 28 days for

In relatively recent American history one could be civilly committed to a psychiatric placement without legal intervention. Prior to the 1970s persons with mental illness were often subject to gross negligence when they were committed to a psychiatric placement. Furthermore, individuals who were committed to these institutions lost their civil rights. Before the 1950s persons in the United States of America could be held without legal jurisdiction in psychiatric asylums. The 1950s had some changes to these laws. However, the practices at these institutions were often abusive. Overcrowding, lack of funding, and theory all contributed to the inhumane treatment of the mentally ill. However, since the 1970s those persons who require a civil commitment have not only gained additional rights, but they have also been given the ability to challenge their committal. Further, those who have been institutionalized are offered treatment. Finally, the emphasis in the United States has been on deinstitutionalization which requires that a commitment occurs at the least restrictive level of care. In the United States of America, the changes to the mental health system have provided persons with mental illness not only a chance at restoration but also dignity.

Whitaker has shown throughout the article that he doesn’t exaggerate facts to get readers attention; he proves his credibility through a series of interviews from mental health professionals and the courts. The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law made a statement that “such laws are a gross violation of their (the people) civil rights and that they are counter productive. Forced treatment drives people away from medical care.” (Mental Health Law, 2). This statement from The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law is a vital piece of evidence that helps confirms the author’s credibility because most times the law is the main reasoning behind many big decisions made, such as the leading question: should the mentally ill be forced to take medicine.

One other limitation is using coercion to get the patient to do what he or she needs to do. Some finds this controversial, however with every action or decision there is a consequence that follows whether the consequence is positive or negative. Depending on the person’s mental illness the higher the severity the higher the risk of making harming and detrimental decisions. While many may say coercion is not the way to go there are also many that believe the mentally ill should be safe and protected while being able to integrate in society.

Over the last two centuries, mental health care for individuals with mental illness has significantly progressed. Despite this, today many issues remain and resurfacing as a byproduct of these shifting mental health policies. For continued effective policy change regarding mental illness, it is imperative to conduct policy and historical analysis to establish the precedence of key issues. Thereby, it is also equally as essential to understand the implications individuals with mental illness faced throughout history navigating the mental health system of our past. As such, historical court cases and policy changes, as well as, the experiences of the individuals are relevant to how we proceed onward today in mental health policy changes, treatment

The wrongful treatment of the mentally ill at the time includes the overall perception that mentally ill is a choice not a serious disease, the condemnation and alienation resulting from that perception, and the doctors’ indifferent, sometimes inhumane attitude toward the mentally ill, which includes electro-shock and solitary confinement. With great advancements in the medical field on mental conditions and an increase in people with mental disease, today people are generally sympathetic toward the mentally ill, who are treated appropriately by the doctors.

The dominant rights-based approach to the ethics of coercion in mental health treatment guides clinicians in deciding whether treatment should be compelled or the patient’s autonomy respected, but provides no guidance across the remaining broad continuum of influence that clinicians exert with patients. Rights-based justification of coercion focuses on those specific acts that breach the assumed obligation to respect patient autonomy and liberty.

This paper is going discuss and explain the situation of a case study based on Katy who has symptoms of depression and has attempted suicide. It will firstly look at what defines a mental disorder; looking at how serration works in the brain and how this effects mental illness, relating it to Katy’s diagnoses. It will then go on to discuss her rights under the mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 on her admission to an acute mental health facility; focusing on section eleven. Discussing her rights and her restrictions under this act. Lastly the paper will explain and compare two ethical principles looking at autonomy and beneficence and how they relate to Katy’s situation and the intervention of persons choice to

According to the article by Barnes (2011) “Does mental illness have a place alongside social and recovery models of mental health in service users’ lived experiences?” (p.65) the author Helen Barnes attempts to show both sides of the argument, while also maintaining a conflict theorist perspective. Barnes (2011) explains the perspectives of mental illnesses in the past and how the views have evolved in forms of legislation. During the enlightenment period, people would use the term “autonomy” as a rightful recovery implication against each individual's mental illness concern. Autonomy is essentially being able to control your own mental health through control of the sense of self. This rejected any full treatment to people suffering from disorders. An inability control yourself meant that you would lose all basic human rights and be confined in a mental asylum, where maltreatment of the patients was performed. This produced fear in the minds of the of living in this time period. So the people that were suffering were conditioned to overlook their disorder to dissolve the fear of being sent to an asylum. The mistreatment of people with disorders is due to a lack of understanding of the biological factors that impact the

“Since coercive measures and particularly mechanical restraint seriously collide with patient autonomy principles, pose a particular challenge to psychiatric patients’ legal rights, and put intensified demands on health professional

The law in relation to recovery in tort for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury is unsatisfactory and is in need of reform by Parliament, to provide the judiciary with guidelines and standards, to ensure that the law is certain, fair and consistent in its delivery of justice for claimants of pure psychiatric injury. This report does not provide a complete analysis and critique of this vast area of law, as 3,000 words would not do justice to all areas concerned; rather, it focuses on the two main categories of claimants of pure psychiatric injury: primary and secondary victims.

This essay will be exploring whether it is ethical to use restraint in the treatment of the mentally ill. Restraint is when someone’s actions or behaviour is controlled by force to prevent harm. There are many types of restraint; physical, chemical, mechanical and psychological. Physical restraint is when a person uses bodily force to restrict, restrain or prevent a person’s movement that may cause harm to the individual or others. Chemical restraint is when drugs are administered to restrict the freedom and movement and in some cases sedate the patient. Finally psychological restraint is when a person’s privileges are withheld. However in a psychiatric environment there are ethical principles that need to be considered when treating a patient. Ethics is the study of psychological beliefs which explores what is right and wrong in