Psychiatric Treatment Of Psychiatric Harm

The shutdown of state mental hospitals and lack of available financial and institutional resources force mentally ill people to the United States Judicial System for mental health. Every year thousands of people are arrested for various crimes and they are sent to jail. Sixteen percent of these people have some type of mental health problem (Public Broadcasting System , 2001). When we consider that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world at 2.2 million, this number is staggering (Anasseril E. Daniel, 2007). This is about 1% of the entire population of the United States. There are many reasons as to why the situation has taken such a bad turn and when the history of the treatment of mental illness is examined one can see how the situation developed into the inhumane disaster it is today.

Decision making and best interests of the patient in the care for people with mental health problems are one of the main concerns in nursing practice. Healthcare professionals should be knowledgeable enough to practice the legal code regarding decision making and protection of the patient with mental health problems (NMC, 2008).

3.2.2 The compromising of the mentally ill perpetrators Health to themselves and the general community

The Olmstead case began in 1995 with two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson who had developmental disabilities and a history of institutional treatment for psychiatric disorders. They were voluntarily admitted at different times, to a secure unit of Georgia Regional Hospital to stabilize and administer to their immediate needs, then continued treatment on an out-patient basis which was the normal course of action for this hospital. Through clinical assessments, the treating physicians determined that each woman was able to receive appropriate supports and services in a less restrictive, community based setting. The hospital administrators moved Lois and Elaine to a state-run institution, and refused them placement in a community setting, apparently due to a lack of state funding to make this transition possible. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-536.ZS.html)

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.

This article discussion the duty to warn and protect in the state of Texas. Texas is one state that rejected the national standard set by Tarasoff. This article describes the difference between the two cases Tarasoff v. Regents and Thapar v. Zezulka in the duty to warn. The authors describe the case Tarasoff v. Regents case as what the state of California established their precedent for mental health professional regarding the duty to warn. In the state of California mental health professional have obligation to warn and protect third parties when a client reveals an intent to harm (Barbee, Ekleberry, and Villalobos, 2007; Corey, Corey, & Callanan., 2007). Whereas, in the state of Texas mental health professional do not have a duty to warn

"A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or

Even though he might be negligent infliction of emotional distress and was being evaluating by a psychiatrist it is still unknown. In addition, Tara’s Family must show specific parts or an oversight that Douglas was liable, for instance they can argue that he omitted informing the authority or tara about the intentions Robert, something that he could have done, Perhaps it would have saved Tara’s life. Tara’s family will be hold the burden of proving that Dr. Douglas acted negligently, therefore breaching his legal duty of care. Even though the requirement to prove loss or damage, Tara’s family will provide that, as a result of Douglas breach of duty, they suffered a loss or damage , which they can support by claiming that this breach caused Tara’s death. However, it must be proved that Tara’s death is traceable to Douglas breach of legal duty, failure to which Tara’s family claim will be consider irrelevant or therefore unchangeable. Douglas has a variety of argument that can support his defense against the negligence claim. Douglas can raise a defense by affirm evidence to demonstrate Tara’s or her family’s

The way you can treat PTSD is maybe talking to a doctor but it really depends on what doctor you are going to talk to. The doctor you really need to talk to for this situation is a Psychiatrist. You can talk to them about your problems and for this case it is a good idea to talk to them. People with PTSD need to know that it can be treated and it doesn't have to be with a Psychiatrist it can be with family or friends. This may not be the answer to curing your disease sometimes it is up to yourself to do these things you may want to cure it with your own space your own time but you will want to have space to others at times because a side effect of this is anger or hatred. There is about four therapies that can help PTSD and other

This change is significant in light of the facts as Alessandria and Luca both must fulfill s 30(2) in order to claim for pure psychiatric injury. Particularly, Alessandria’s ability to recover was made difficult through the NSW Act’s removal of “aftermath” from s 30(2)(a), as she didn’t directly perceive the accident. The removal is in line with the common normative concepts of reasonable foreseeability because those who witness the aftermath may be a “large and disparate… class… as to make liability indeterminate”. However, Wicks v State Rail Authority , interpreted the Act to allow rescuers to recover, allowing Alessandria to recover on the facts. This highlights the harsh construction of the Act, as there are normative concerns over disentitling people from their ability to claim. Firstly, the limitation on relationships in the Act ignores the possibility of non-nuclear family members often considered close, especially in multicultural society. Additionally, ‘no-duty’ rules undermine the moral precepts of fault principles in negligence, as they ensure defendants are not always held accountable for action where they were at fault. For example, if Alessandria is found not to fulfill s 30(2)(a) she will be left without remedy for the pure psychiatric harm suffered, despite the fact that it would not have occurred without the defendant’s negligent

Mental illness can change a persons’ capacity to make rational and safe decisions, often creating a contradiction in actions to their core ethics and beliefs (Mind, Mental health crisis care: physical restraint in crisis report, June 2013). David Bennett had suffered with schizophrenia for nearly 20 years, leading to aggressive changes in his mood. On the evening of David’s death he had an incident with another patient, which caused him to become angry, leading to a physical altercation,

For the purpose of this week’s discussion, I decided to confer the Lanterman Petris Short Act, endorsed in 1968 in California, thus founding particular necessities for the proviso of mental health facilities in the civic. In addition, the circumstances are establishments of unintentional confinement by peace officers and individuals elected by the Act. The Lanterman Petris Short Act, is for individuals, “who,” are to be austerely disable, and threaten harm to themselves, and others around them; therefore, individuals could possibly be taken into protective watch for 72 hours, in the effect of mental malady (Moore, 2015).

Still, the idea – and practice – remains deeply controversial. Concern often focuses on a lack of confidence in the notion that mental illness or emotional pain should ever be regarded as “incurable”. A troubling question then arsies as to whether we might be too carelessly priviliging the right to autonomy, and undermining our responsibility to protect vulnerable people from harm.

Psychiatric institutions can introduce individuals to many forms of abuse including psychological, sexual, verbal and drug abuse. The public should be educated on the mistreatment that occurs behind the doors. Sexual abuse deems itself to be one of the top forms of abuse in psychiatric institutions. Those to whom inhabit these facilities have a mental illness, therefore, the verbal statements that these individual vocalize throughout their days can be considered to be fictitious. The mental state that they are reduced to or the reason that they are in the position that they are in can make this more believable. Media has broaden our horizons with a more vivid representation of the madness that occurs; as well as personal accounts that have

Legal systems are critical to the functionality of any given society. In particular, issues of duty and responsibility are fundamental to address especially when one party causes harm or injury to another. In this respect, the concept of duty of care and its connection to negligence serve a key role in the society. Tort law provides for legal processes following acts of negligence that exhibit duty of care. The underlying liability in negligence, however, is limited because duty of care must be justified before the courts.