Dangers of Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for Patients with Mental Illness - Research Paper Example

? The practical and Legal Dangers of Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for patients with Mental Illness Wanda Stewart January 19, Augusta Technical College Associate Degree Nursing Program Introduction In the past few years, most of the policy makers have begun to raise their views of the need to reconsider the involuntary outpatient commitment. This is so because of the need to enhance safety to the public, and provide the necessary mental health service to the non-compliant individuals. In most cases, individuals who have mental challenges and are outpatient can pose a threat to the society or community. Such threats are practical and legal tough because they may be involuntary. In addition, outpatient commitment can hinder offering voluntary services and discourage people from using mental health care services. When people fear to acquire services from mental health care centers, stigma precedes. Therefore, it is necessary to develop legal ways of handling this issue other than the voluntary therapeutic models (Levkowitch, Weiser, Levy and Neumann, 2001). Objectives This paper aims at analyzing practical and legal dangers associated with involuntary outpatient commitment. This is important because of the dangers and stigma that are associated with individuals diagnosed with mental illness. Therefore, this paper will attempt to scrutinize this in details and identify the practical and legal actions to be done, so that these issues are dealt with completely. Literature review Outpatient commitment refers to employed strategy or mechanism of dealing with or compelling a mentally ill person. This aims at encouraging this people to comply with the psychotropic drugs and the ordered treatment as a strategy of living in the community. In this case it is always important for diagnosed individuals undergo frequent blood and urine test, attend self-help group meetings, as well as enter psychotherapy with specific therapist. At times, condition demands orders are prolonged to enable the target issue to be met. Individuals currently considered to be dangerous, do not qualify to be our patients but rather in-patient. This is important because such people can be dangerous to the community. As a result, it is essential to restrict them so that their handling can be easy. Most of the outpatient supporters claim that this strategy is gentler and kind compared to alternative of inpatient commitment. They claim that this will help to reduce threats that arise from involuntary hospitalization. In this case, the targeted individuals are those who have mental illness. However, outpatient commitment will require an individual with pain of entering police custody to undergo re-hospitalization, comply with decisions for treatment and prove no danger to the community. These are compatible with the law, and at the same time help enhance safety to the community at large. The first law relating with outpatient was enacted during the early 1980s. As a result, over 40 states now have this law in books. About 20 states out of 40 invoke the law most infrequently because of the reluctance of the service providers’ participation and lack of the community-based service (Sinaiko and McGuire, 2008). According to many scholars, the main issue of concern is whether the outpatient commitment will be able to achieve its objectives. Existing claims say that this may not increase public safety enormously. They state that in our society most of the violence results in issues different from mental illness. They claim that only few people are dangerous to others and to themselves due to mental illness. In addition, most of them have gone to an extent of committing criminal offences. According to the law, it is important to seek involuntary hospitalization in emergency cases of violence from mentally ill individuals. There exist only few evidences supporting the fact that outpatient commitment will make the public and diagnosed individuals safer. According to the requirements of majority of scholars, it is necessary to incorporate innovative treatment, such as peer outreach to work in line with outpatient commitment. They believe that this is more likely to be successful, as it will intensify outreach compared with court orders (Swanson, Swartz, Elbogen, Wagner and Burns, 2003). Methodology In research, one can use several options. It can be secondary or primary methods. The primary methods of research involve collection of information firsthand from the field. This can be a usage of questionnaires, interviews and observation. Questionnaires involve a set of questions regarding an issue under research to be filled by the sample population. Interview is either direct or indirect interrogation of the sample population by an interviewer. Observation refers to monitoring and viewing of an event that happened. Secondary methods of research, on the other hand, refer to collection of information recorded in books, journals, magazines, articles or in electronic database among other secondary sources. This recorded information was from the research which was done earlier by various scholars and kept in records. In this paper, research will be done by using secondary sources of information. As a result, information was specifically from records existing in electronic database. Results and Discussion There were varying explanations regarding the policy makers’ requirements regarding outpatient commitment. Some individuals claim that it will not be so effective compared to current approach of mentally ill individuals. In the study, there was a comparison between those who were the subjects of outpatient commitment and those who were offered the same intensive services. It was clear that there were no great improvements in the patients’ compliance with the treatment. In addition, there was no increase in continuation of treatment (Swanson, Swartz, George, Burns, Hiday, Borum and Wagner, 2001). The rate of hospitalization of mentally ill individuals did not change. It was also noted that the rate of arrest, hospital stay and violation rate of the violent act did not change. In addition, researchers found out that outpatient commitment did not have clear benefits on an individual, unless he or she was in retention for at least six months and after that accompanied by high intensity support and community service. They stated that this benefited only few individuals. From the results, most of the people who engage in violence are not mentally ill. It is clear that over 60% of those who engage in violence are individuals who have their own issues other than mental illness. The other 40% who engage in violence are said to be mentally ill (Ridgely, Borum and Petrila, 2000). However, it is worth nothing, despite the fact that there are few mentally ill individuals who end up committing criminal offences. Recommendation It is necessary that policy makers consider reviewing the research literature which states that the outpatient commitment has no benefit compared with existing one. Instead, attempts are necessary to improve services provided. This will, in turn, lead to increase in the resultant benefits. It is also necessary to enhance and coordinate mental health services offered. In this way it will be possible to affect the consumers’ outcome and the outcome of the entire public. Conclusion In my opinion, based on the results from the research, it is clear that attempts are to ensure rehabilitation of the mentally ill individuals in a legal and practical way. As a result, such programs designed for rehabilitation have long-term life improvement of the participants. Although in the end the results are positive, it takes a long time for the participants to have an impact. Therefore, in my option the greatest question that remains dominant in my mind is whether it is a good and effective method of helping mentally ill individuals. In addition, outpatient commitment in its objectives appears shortsighted which may undermine long term treatment of alliances. This is so because I strongly believe that laid efforts aiming at improving mental health system of the public. References Levkowitch, Y., Weiser, M., Levy, A. & Neumann, M. (2001). Involuntary outpatient commitment: ethical and legal aspects. Retrieved on 19 January, 2012, from http://www.mendeley.com/research/involuntary-outpatient-commitment-ethical-legal-aspects/ Ridgely, S. Borum, R. & Petrila, J. (2000). Does Involuntary Outpatient Treatment Work? Retrieved on 19 January, 2012, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4537/index1.html Sinaiko, A.D. & McGuire, T.G. (2008). Patient Inducement, Provider Priorities, and Resource Allocation in Public Mental Health Systems. Retrieved on 19 January, 2012, from http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/31/6/1075.abstract Swanson, J. W., Swartz, M. S., George, L. K., Burns, B. J., Hiday, V. A., Borum, R. & Wagner, H. R. (2001). Effectiveness of involuntary outpatient commitment. Retrieved on 19 January, 2012, from http://www.mendeley.com/research/effectiveness-involuntary-outpatient-commitment/ Swanson, J.W., Swartz, M.S., Elbogen, E.B., Wagner, H. R. & Burns, B. J. (2003). Effects of involuntary outpatient commitment on subjective quality of life in persons with severe mental illness. Retrieved on 19 January, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.548/abstract Read More