Civil Rights and Social Justice - Coursework Example

Civil Rights and Social Justice Introduction In 2004, the U.S Center for Mental Health Services, which operates under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, began a program to fund the Other State Agency Project. The initiative was a bold step towards the facilitation of cooperation with multistate programs to refine and develop standard protocols and procedures that would guide states identify mental health resources and expenditures, and the number of patients or customers served by the program. The aim of the initiative was to support states finance and coordinate comprehensive services. The initiative would also provide resources for the support of mental health services consumers and their families (Miller, 2013). In addition, the program would help in increasing interagency planning and cooperation, and decrease the fragmentation of mental health services. Current overlapping jurisdiction and procedures for mental health services lead to the fragmentation of the services and subsequent confusion for policymakers and consumers (Segal, 2010). Fragmentation limits the ability of policymakers to allocate resources and financial services and administer programs. The position taken is yes, the fragmentation of mental health services challenge service delivery. There are concerns about the effects of the fragmentation of mental health service delivery, particularly for dually diagnosed homeless. This fragmentation affects service access, delivery and outcomes. In addition, mental health and criminal justice systems have functioned as complementary partners in state social control functions. Evidence Mental health service providers need to maintain respect and dignity for the chronic mentally ill. They should also be given the right treatment and humanly services without an infringement on their civil rights. The current set-up of the U.S mental health is characterized by excessive disintegration, which worsens outcomes for the mentally ill (Blau & Abramovitz, 2007). At the illness level, healthcare related data shows that medical errors occur as a result of the lack of sharing information and the lack of teamwork. The Institute of Medicine states that errors are systematic problems, which are caused by the lack of structure for cooperation between the fragmented entities. At the patient level, mentally ill patients see at least five specialists and two physicians annually. In case of chronic illness, the mentally ill patient may see thirteen physicians annually. Each of these specialists is focused on discrete body parts and symptoms within their jurisdiction. These instances provide opportunities for the abuse of the mentally ill patient. Few of the physicians attending to these patients practice in a multispecialty environment (Levin, 2004). This means that family members or patients have the responsibility of coordinating the physician’s sessions. The problem with this situation is that family members of patients do not have the medical expertise to coordinate the activities of a mental health specialist. The consequence of this fragmentation is that patients do not receive mental healthcare that is suited for their needs. The second evidence is related to mental health and criminal justice systems. This evidence is concerned with human rights and its relations to civil rights. The evidence shows that mentally ill patients have inalienable rights. The Declaration of Human Rights outlines the needs for nations to recognize the dignity and inalienable rights of all members of a family. Additionally, the declaration gives responsibilities to governments to promote improved standards of living and social progress. These patients should be given unlimited access to mental health services. The problem with the fragmentation of mental health services is that not all mentally ill patients can access these services (World Health Organization, 2014). Fragmentation creates a problem whereby tests done by different practitioners and specialists are treated casually. These assessments may be unavailable, or specialists may treat them with distrust. Most importantly different healthcare service providers may lack common information technology tools and structures (Elhauge, 2010). Public health facilities do not have functional electronic equipments and medical systems. These challenges in accessing healthcare services show that in a number of instances, mentally ill patients are denied their rights to healthcare. According to one of the specialists at the Telecare Corporation, some mentally ill patients may be imprisoned. When mentally ill people break the law, they are subjected to the criminal justice system and sent to jail. Mentally ill people should not be placed in jails because it may aggravate their mental condition. Most practitioners prefer not to send their patients to jail. Jails restrict mentally ill patients, and it provides opportunities for depression. Mentally ill patients who serve jail terms are mostly denied access to medical therapy or treatment. The third evidence is based on housing. There is a shortage of housing for mentally ill patients. In some of the cases, mentally ill patients may be placed in a waiting list, which does not guarantee housing. Mentally ill patients who are denied housing are subjected to homelessness. In the U.S, a third of the homeless population is mentally ill. A third of these people are chronically mentally ill. This means that approximately 250,000 homeless people in the U.S are chronically mentally ill (American Psychiatric Association, 2009). The specialist from Telecare Corporation stated that one of their major objectives is to provide a home to the mentally ill people. This is achieved through their housing support. The housing support used by Telecare Corporation is based on the provision of medication and education, outreach and engagement programs and community based services. Explanation of Issues The most devastating outcome of a fragmented mental healthcare program is the lack of provision of assessment services. As a result, most mentally ill patients lack awareness of their state. They also do not know the cause of their mental ill and the effects of their medical condition. They end-up self-medicating themselves. Most of the people who have chronic mental ill have co-occurring mental disorders. In an effective system, these people receive treatment for their substance addiction and mental health (Monagle & Thomasma, 2005). In fragmented healthcare system, the patient is treated for one condition at one location, and the other condition at a different location. In most of the cases, some healthcare institution refuse to accept patients in medication assisted treatment, because they do not trust the service provider. This forces patients to choose the disorder they want to receive treatment. The second issue that was raised is the issue of jail term and developed plans for services, housing, medication and treatment. Some families may decide to take mentally ill relatives to jail hoping that the correction facility will transform the patient (Devettere, 2009). The problem is that jails do not provide mental healthcare services. As a result, the mentally ill patient’s condition may worsen. The alternative to jail term is the development of a plan for service delivery (Videbeck, 2011). The plan should include housing, medication and treatment while offering the patient the best care and freedom. Telecare Corporation is an organization that uses developed plans to offer medical help to mentally ill patients. Telecare Corporation has developed a program that is holistic and richly personal. The program is designed using comprehensive approaches to recovery. This program is beneficial to the patient because it ensures that patients are engaged during the exploration of appropriate medical interventions. Additionally, patients collaboratively work with employees of the program in order to build connections, reduce harm and make effective choices (Roberts & Dyer, 2004). Patients are guided as they rediscover their individual uniqueness. A recovery plan uses the input of patients to help specialists focus on the work of the program. Most plans use multidisciplinary teams, which include a nurse, psychiatrist and team leader. These specialists are licensed to provide mental health services to patients. Influence of Context and Assumptions When caring for mentally ill patients, it is imperative to maintain respect and ensure that services are offered ethically. Mental ill patients are usually subjected to abuse and neglect by their care providers. They may be denied medical attention, food, care or compassion. Care providers should respect the mental condition of the mentally ill patient. This means that these people have a right to act psychotically within the contexts of dignity and privacy. Mental health practitioners should understand that there are ethical implications associated with their work (Karger, 2008). Therefore, assumptions should be made on the basis of these implications. Most importantly, mental health practitioners should advocate for the equal and fair treatment and equity and social justice for the mentally ill patients. Mental healthcare service providers should have an ethical definition of humanity. This will help in their determination of the quality of service delivered and nature of being human. The objective of health professionals is to provide services to their patients while protecting life and conferring dignity. Conclusion and Related Outcomes One of the major challenges to an effective mental healthcare program is the fragmentation of service delivery. People with chronic mental conditions should be given unlimited access to services and mental health products. There are many chronic mental ill patients who are self medicate because they cannot access mental health services. Additionally, they are faced with a system in which the fragmented providers do not trust each other. The self-medication of these patients leads to a number of legal issues. Mental health practitioners are faced with legal issues that deal with the ethical implications of their actions. A practitioner may encounter a mentally ill patient who is self-medicated. It is easy for this practitioner to determine that the patient broke the law by self medicating. The practitioner may end up sending the patient to jail. In an ideal situation, the practitioner should not send the patient to jail. The practitioner should provide the patient with an environment for recovery. This environment needs the input of different mental health professionals. It should be a multidisciplinary approach to mental health. The government should show the willingness to develop plans for mentally ill patients. Local governments should assure these patients of their rights and service delivery. Additionally, local governments should participate in funding mental health institutions such as group homes, and provide facilities for training these professionals. Technical and professional knowledge about mental health conditions is insufficient to deal with the complex and ever changing issues facing mental healthcare. There is a need to push for affordable and patient-centric healthcare for the mentally ill people. Reference American Psychiatric Association. (2009). Treatment of mental illness & substance abuse: A compendium of articles from Psychiatric services. Washington, D.C: Psychiatric Services Resource Center, American Psychiatric Association. Blau, J., & Abramovitz, M. (2007). The dynamics of social welfare policy. Oxford: Oxford university press. Devettere, R. J. (2009). Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Elhauge, E. (2010). The fragmentation of U.S. health care: Causes and solutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karger, H. J. (2008). Controversial issues in social policy. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Levin, B. L. (2004). Mental health services: A public health perspective. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Miller, E. A. (2013). The Affordable Care Act: Advancing long-term care policy in the United States. New York. Cengage. Monagle, J. F., & Thomasma, D. C. (2005). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Roberts, L. W., & Dyer, A. R. (2004). Concise guide to ethics in mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub. Segal, E. A. (2010). Social welfare policy and social programs: A values perspective. Australia: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Videbeck, S. L. (2011). Psychiatric-mental health nursing. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. World Health Organization. (2014). Mental Health Policy, Planning and Service Development. World Health Development. Retrieved From http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/services/en/ Read More