Mental Illness: Ethics and Laws - Term Paper Example

 MENTAL ILLNESS Patient’s informed consent is an imperative aspect in the administration of any treatment meant to curb any disorder. Since, this gives the physician go ahead certificate and an assurance that the ailing has adequate information about the facts, implications and even consequences of the action. The emphasizes emanates from the respect of humanity’s ethics and rights which states that any individual has the capacity to give informed consent for the purpose of examination destined for medical process. This sometimes may be denied on the grounds of mental capacity, but it will depend on one’s level of impairment (Symington, 2007: p. 93). Since, at various occasions, mentally impaired people may have room either agree or disagree, especially if is it an adult person having in mind medical ethics which require much observance. English law necessitates that medical professional prior to any assessment must attain consent from the patient, which will enable him or her to act backed by patient’s willingness (Glover-Thomas, 2006: p. 24). This is to ensure that they have kept medical ethics pertaining to the wellbeing of the patient plus one is not put to any treatment despite being helpful. Conversely, at some occasions, a patient may be in a situation where one cannot be able to make up what is best for him or her due to mental incapacity prompted by accident or illness. These situations calls for immediate action since the patient’s health might be in danger or yield to more serious predicament (Glover-Thomas, 2006). Both law and ethics allow medical professionals to treat these patients with the absence of their consent, aiming at saving lives. Any meaningful consent which medical practitioner can claim as a backing if anything goes wrong is obtainable from a spouse, reliable relative or friends if they available to be held accountable enough (Scott, 2010: p. 160). Ethics and laws too permit administration of treatment suppose no people who can be sought after due to medical urgency (Glover-Thomas, 2006). This mostly is especially with accident victims or unidentified detained lunatics where their relatives, spouses or even friends are not available. For instance victims from, vehicle accidents, natural calamities and detainees in foreign states meant to give vital information. Administering treatment in this state, its main aim does not insinuate to ignore the legal process but to keep life, though one can make diverse resolutions when regains consciousness. Since, patient’s approval may be a continuous process where after regaining health, an individual may decide what is best for him and where he wants to access remaining services to recuperate fully. The law then holds for the respect of the patient again, since at present one can make structured decisions with proper information availed. Sometimes the patient may not have convalesced fully to the state of making ordered or concrete verdicts regarding his health care, hence there is need for another reliable person to do so. This entails surrogate decision-making especially when one is cognitively weakened by infirmity or grievance (Symington, 2007). Doctors and those who will administer treatment to the patient usually cooperate with surrogate decision-makers throughout the process. This is until the patient is able to make ordered sole decrees about his or her wellbeing. Generally, surrogate decision-makers are unrestricted to equal extent of disclosure that would be suitable with a patient who is not disabled by malady or disorder. Mental illness capacity varies with patients; where to some may be able to decipher at least what is going on but cannot make right decisions with the absence of surrogate decision-makers (Scott, 2010: p. 40). Their minds are unstable, where in some circumstances, may be in their right mind but alters with time. This denies them the legal freedom to execute their privileges in making required and necessary personal health care decisions. Essentially, this is extensive among the aged who are partially or totally incapacitated mentally and require assistance anytime they should obtain treatment. However, in this state the clinicians and the responsible relatives must have strong substantiation that individual is incapable of making right decisions. Hence, doctors and the involved practitioners act out of beneficence factor for the one’s best interests. Mental Health Act 2005 in some situations and circumstances may compel medical treatment on patients. Since, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales its main motives are safeguard the welfare and citizens’ interests (Symington, 2007: p. 89). Part 4 exemplifies vividly patients who have the freedom to repudiate medical treatment which may be administered on them and those who lack that power. The patients apprehended by divisions 136, 5, 35, 4, plus135 do not have any right to disregard any kind of treatment. This is because the concerned authorities under whom they work or adhere to have determined their state. For instance, the institutions that house lunatics who have range of mental illness and require medical attention at determined intervals. This involves intervention of qualified doctors who have undergone meticulous training for one year, for instance, Approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) (Scott, 2010: p. 112). These poses the role of ensuring that the patients assigned to, are in good health and constantly checked despite their approval. Formal patients may have the right to give consent regarding medic they are supposed to receive, but in the occasions of emergence doctors and other specialists may overrule this privilege (Scott, 2010: p. 54). Mainly, this is frequently evident among autism patients who at some instances are able to make right decisions depending on the level of the illness. It is not the case when other disorders like Asperger syndrome attacks the person, hence rendering him incapacitated mentally. Consequently, prompting the necessary authorities and close people of the patient frequently making decisions when necessary for medical attention. Because autism and Asperger syndrome victim develops various difficulties which can only be understood by those who are close to him (Scott, 2010: p. 200). These predicaments encompass intricacy in communicating their feelings of disturbances plus distress which calls for intervention without the patient’s consent. Since the actual actions and what the patients undergoes is solitary evident to the doctor and the close people, but not him or her. In concluding, my outlook is that mental challenged individuals despite their state of predicament should be imposed on good medical treatment. Since, this mostly benefits patients who may at the moment be unaware of their state and waiting for them to give consent may be unfruitful (Scott, 2010: p. 53). Additionally, it may be belatedly and the state of the victim worsened beyond medical capability to reverse one’s state to the original wellbeing easily. This requires early and timely medical intervention because the patient may not be able to notice due to one’s mental unstructured state. References N. Glover-Thomas, 2006. 'Treating the vulnerable in England and Wales: The impact of law reform and changing policy', International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 29, pp. 22-35, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 January 2012. Symington, J 2007, 'The Mental Capacity Act 2005: Implications for health and social care providers in England and Wales', Journal Of Management & Marketing In Healthcare, 1, 1, pp. 88-97, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 January 2012. SCOTT, C. L. (2010). Handbook of correctional mental health. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Pub. Read More