The Mental Health Act 1983 - Essay Example

The Mental Health Act 1983 Case Section 2 of the Mental Health act has to do with compulsory admission for purposes of assessment. The case in this section shall dwell predominantly on the rights of the person under admission. There is also a provision for assessment that leads to actual treatment. All this, however, has to be done within a timeframe of 28 days. Another section 2 is instituted on the eve of the end of the first one. Up to this point, everything is being done according to procedure. The patient P has to be kept at the hospital so as to protect him from himself. Remember he has portrayed suicidal tendencies with the consumption of half a bottle of ginseng. The practitioner is within the law if he chooses to extend the stay of the patient at the hospital provided his observations find such a recommendation necessary. The law does not expressly state whether the patient or a person close to them has a right to be consulted in the making of this decision. Section 3 is identical to section 2. The only difference is that the focus has now shifted from assessment to actual treatment. Therefore the criterion in the previous section warrants this move. The other distinction between section two and three is that the previous one deals with ‘admission’ for treatment while the latter deals with ‘detention’ for treatment. The practitioner up to this point is within the law. The detention, unlike the admission can run to a period of up to six months and can also be extended. The involvement of his sister is not a mere coincidence however. This brings the whole issue of guardianship into the picture. Guardianship is covered under section 7 of the Mental Health acc, 1983. The guardian can be an authority in social services. This is clearly the case with his sister. The section also states that the social services person can decide the residence of a person. In this case his sister’s recommendation of detention carries the day. The only question is to what extent the powers of the guardian extend. The remaining avenue is a very important one too. The wife can apply to the mental Health Review Tribunal within the first period of detention and then yearly after that. A family tug of war however emerges amidst all this regarding whether the detention should go ahead or not. However, this should not interfere with the care that the patient receives. There are violations of his rights that might be the result of family ties and even his sexual orientation. The imposition of a dress code on his part is evidence of this. The fact that his rights are not spelt out to him at the start is also evidence of violation. It seems in this case that there is on effort on the part of the medical staff to detain the patient for as long as is possible. No medical justification is provided for the extensions. Case 2 This case dwells on the procedure of instituting a detention. P has clearly consented to come for treatment thus the ‘informal patient’ status. The informal patient therefore enjoys more rights compared to the formal patients. One of those is the right to receive treatment from home. The Mental health Act 1983 provides for an application incase a detention is to be instituted. The person to make that application is the approved mental health professional (AMHP). Before the application however, there should be an interview. This interview is designed to give the professional the right state of things. A fortnight after the interview, the application can then be made. P seems to like it in hospital however. In law, this does not necessarily amount to a concession. His condition might make him unable to respond negatively to the detention. He also says very little and has not protested his admission. The issue of law under the microscope here is the procedure to be followed in the case of a detention. There seem to be a few cracks in the law that the medical providers seem to fall into. They have not followed the detention procedure as set out in law. This is a violation of the rights of the patient. Just because the patient talks less for instance is no ground not to conduct the interview. However, another issue of law presents itself here. The AMHP must make the application within 14 days of the interview. The law does not state however when the interview is to be carried out. The AMHP can therefore choose to conduct the interview when the patient’s condition allows them to talk, as in this case. The AMHP is also supposed to consult the nearest relative of the patient before making this application. The person envisioned in this case as the ‘nearest relative’ is the wife of the patient. Her opposition to the detention is clear from the start. The only issue under contention therefore is, under which law should the AMHP apply for such a detention? Under section 2, the relative’s opinion carries little weight. The doctor’s recommendation can overrule it therefore. The case is different under section three however. The relative’s opinion is the final word. In this case, the patient is supposed to be released as the wife wishes. In this case, the patient can only be categorized under section 3. This is because there is already proof of existence of a mental condition. There is also the case of detention of Rigas, a section 41 patient. Section 41 details how an order for detention can be issued through the courts. The detention in this case is indefinite until the patient is discharged. The patient, Rigas, is released conditionally, meaning he might be recalled at any time. Rigas is detained under section 3. This is strictly for purposes of treatment. This means that his freedom either endangers his own life or the lives of other people. The reason why he is also admitted under section 3 is because there is a need for the said treatment to happen while he is under detention. Case 3 Community care is also a key part of the Mental health Law. This case primarily seeks to explore the position of the Mental health Law with respect to the care that patients which mental health disorders receive. This case also seeks to highlight the qualities necessary in caregivers for the best results to be obtained. B’s mother seems to be disturbed by her daughter’s condition. As a consequence, she is mismanaging a very delicate condition. Schizophrenia is characterized by a breakdown of both the thought processes and emotional responses too. It is well known for instance that patients suffering from schizophrenia require good quality life that is best enhanced by independence and integration with the rest of the society. Sasha seems to offer the exact opposite. This does not bode well for her daughter’s health. In this case, an intervention is necessary. It is also worth noting that Sasha herself is exhibiting some very worrying behavior. She seems obsessed by her daughter’s condition and seems to be having a disorder herself. When we recall that schizophrenia has a genetic component, it changes the game completely. This might be the case of a mother and a daughter both dealing with the same mental health disorder. Therefore, the latter has no ability to care for the former. This makes the intervention by Tutuis not only necessary but compulsory. The GP already diagnosed B with schizophrenia and probably thought that the patient can receive treatment from home. However, it is clear that this option is unsustainable. A care plan can be drafted by the Social Services Department. This patient is also subject to a community treatment order. Either way, there must be a different care plan. The initial one, if any, drawn by the GP seems ineffective. There seems to be no contact with the outside world in the case of the patient. This is untenable for a patient whose recovery partly depends on successful integration into the society. The Social Services Department must set some ground rules relating to the care of this patient. Case 4 a) Indeed the Mental Health Act has a provision for this kind of scenario. From the very beginning the section allows the doctor or even the social worker to compulsorily admit the person for assessment. This is a very critical stage since the presence or not of a mental health disorder is supposed to be detected at this stage. An application under section 2 can be made by either a relative or an Approved Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP). This must be done in the best interests of this patient. This is a critical case because X has already been diagnosed with the psychopathic disorder. The next step should be section 3, admission for treatment. b) Y seems to be suffering from a serious mental health condition which has necessitated a renewal of his section 3 for the third consecutive time. This is meant for treatment. However, section 3 in general is a bit different. The family has a say on his continued stay at the mental health institution. They can launch an appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This is valid only once a year after the initial six months admission period. The non-consensual admission should only last for a period of up to six months. c) Section 41 generally deals restriction. Section 41 can be used by the courts to restrict the discharge of people who have already been directed by section 37 to undergo treatment. The period of detention is mostly unstated. Section 35 allows for detention of up to 12 weeks, all in renewable blocks of 28 days. Section 35 patients are usually awaiting imprisonment for offences. Therefore both are mentally disordered offenders. Both of them committed crimes and were sent to a mental institution for treatment instead of prison. The patients can still be re-admitted for treatment under section 3 if they are still at large. This is because a mental health disorder had already been detected and what they were already undergoing was treatment. This is also good for the patients but especially the general public considering the two were offenders in the first place. d) Section 37, is also called a hospital order. This is an order issues by a court to retain a person for treatment if they commit a violation instead of taking them to a mental health institution. Z has absconded and is therefore placing the security of the general public in jeopardy. The managers are right in their decision to seek a detention for treatment. Clearly the patient is suffering from mental health and must be in an environment where the condition can be managed better. Besides their initial period of treatment has not yet expired. e) Section 136 has to deal with police matters and the mental Health Act. This section gives the police the leeway to act if they believe that someone is suffering from a mental disorder and need immediate care. The betting place is a public place. The police are allowed to take away this patient to a Place of Safety instead. The Place of Safety ranges from a hospital and can even include a police station. The objective is to protect the person and the general public. At this Place of Safety the patient shall be examined by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP to diagnose their mental health status. They shall then decide whether the patient can receive care from home or from the hospital. The patient can spend up to 72 hours at a Place of Safety. They can be switched to another Place of Safety if this is in their best interests. References The Mental Health Act, 1983 Read More