The Legal And Ethical Implications Of The Mental Health Act

People with mental illness have always been discriminated against; to have an exclusion such as this go through Congress without being repealed is reprehensible. The IMD Exclusion provides the states with financial incentives to provide substandard care, or no care at all. It encourages states to shift costs by placing mentally ill patients anywhere but psychiatric hospitals (Davoli, 2003).

Furthermore, there are a number of barriers that prevent police from effectively dealing with people who have a mental illness. These include gaps in the community mental health service, and mix feelings about the nature of the responsibility when officers are responding to mental illness calls (Adelman, 2003). Barriers that are involve is, the inadequate advance information, when a situation arise police dispatchers do not ask for more information of what to expect when arriving to the scene as well any specific detail about the mental ill person such as, if the person has previously contacted the police before. Not

“Statistics suggest that, with one in 5 adults, and 27 per cent of young Australians, suffering some form of mental illness, current mental health funding is unable to cater for all mental health needs, forcing prisons to become the new mental health institutions.”

NDCC 25.03.2-06 creates admission criteria for psychiatric residential treatment facilities, or also known as residential treatment centers. The main criteria outlined is a diagnosis of an mental illness or emotional disturbance by a psychiatrist or psychologist, which cannot be treated at a lower level of care. While in general a seemingly good policy with positive aspects, there are a few issues with NDCC 25.03.2-06 that both policy makers and social workers working in PRTFs should be aware of. This paper will analysis the policy in further depth to determine if changes should be made.

This story is a controversial story that uncovers many issues that the health care and legal system have. Pete Earley’s includes the difficult stories that people with mental illness and/or their family members have. As well as, talks about the struggles he went through to get his son into treatment. Mike has bipolar disorder, and would refuse treatment, since he has the right to refuse treatment there was nothing the doctors could do to help Mike. It’s interesting, when Mike would refuse treatment, he was not in the right state of mind, however, there was nothing the health care providers could do. It is astonishing, that if Pete wanted to get Mike involuntary admitted he had to lie and tell the health care providers, that his son threatened to kill him, which is terrible. The health care field is all about being open, and being there for the patient, however, because of all the laws in place, it prevents patients from receiving vital care. Hence, Pete’s story positively impacts nurses to want to help make a change, stand up, and advocate for patients that need help. It is not fair, ethical, or moral

Course Video Critique 4: The New Asylums Summary: In the video, “The New Asylums,” explains the ever growing problem of mentally ill inmates are entering in prisons as the solution rather than mental hospitals. Prisons remain the only solution for the mentally ill due to the ability to keep them from harming the community or being involved in criminal activity. Unlike normal inmates, sometimes mentally ill inmates may refuse to cooperate with the prison officials and thus force may be required to put them into submission.

Anybody kept under area 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which frequently happens on the off chance that somebody shows up rationally exasperates in an open spot,

Mental Illness in our prison systems is often times overlooked and maybe even misunderstood. Is it because our prison systems are so overcrowded that the resources and medical staff needed do not want to deal with the mental issues prisoners suffer? Maybe it is because society would rather ignore, or “sweep under the rug”, inmates with mental health issues because they have committed a crime. Do they not deserve the same care and attention as other mental health patients? Perhaps, one of the reasons statistics are so high for repeat offenders is because of untreated/undetected mental health issues. In the following pages,

The aim of assignment is to answer the question ‘Does the mental capacity act restrict or enhance personal freedom and autonomy?’ This assignment is mainly focused on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with emphasis on the rights being judged as having or lacking capacity to make appropriate decision for self and relating it to the condition chosen that will be discussed in the essay. The Act highlights the key principles and how it protect the patients who lack capacity and are prevented from making certain decisions about their lives on a temporary, permanent or basis decisions which are being made on their behalf. This Act supports the concept of assessment and a decision making process that is evenly to service users’ legitimate rights, liberty, empowerment and autonomy, while the decision-making framework for clinicians has been clarified and codified and patients’ rights enhanced (Donelly, 2010).

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, when someone is found NCRMD, the “paramount consideration” is the safety of the public. The legislation and Demers v Attorney General of Canada further illustrate that unfit people should not be detained unnecessarily if they do not pose a risk to the public. In other words, non-violent offenders should be discharged absolutely or conditionally. From a Charter standpoint, this makes sense. The government should not detain people if there is no reason to detain them. However, it also illustrates how the criminal legislation is indifferent to bettering the life of psychiatric offenders. The Review Board or court acknowledges that a person has very significant psychiatric problems, then releases them into the community without providing

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).

The use of treatments such as restraint is permitted according to the Mental Health Act (1983), for treating individual suffering from mental health disorder (Mind, 2013). This law can be applied with or without the approval of the person involved as its ultimate goal is to prevent the person from harming himself or others (Royal College of Nursing, 2015). However, with recent incidence of injuries and even death that has occurred as a result of this kind of treatment has raised doubt in the minds of on an enormous number of people (Mind, 2013). The debate over whether it is morally or professionally right to use restraint as part of the treatment for individuals suffering from mental health issues remained unabated as a

A prisoner who has killed six people has the right to a psychiatric evaluation before sentencing, but safety protocol calls for the psychiatrist to come to

Furthermore, John’s disability was used to justify his detention in the unreasonable accommodation of an authorized mental health facility temporarily pending the availability of a place in a disability facility. John’s indefinite detained status with no limited community treatment may have caused ‘irreparable psychological effects.’ Unlike in Noble, John’s detention was not subject to regular six-month periodic reviews of the necessity of his forensic order during the non-revocation period, increasing the likelihood of

Social workers are expected to follow the National Code of Ethics and uphold the ethical values of the social work profession. Not all social workers and mental health clinicians are adhering to the Code of Ethics especially when it comes to accurately diagnosing clients. Some are purposely under or over diagnosing clients and are in direct violation of the ethical standards of the profession. Clinicians, at times, may feel pressured by external and internal forces to use a label even though they do not believe it is the best description of a person's symptoms.