UK Policy and Legislation Applying to Mental Health - Case Study Example

College: UK Policy and Legislation Applying to Mental Health Case A 39-year old woman who has paranoid schizophrenia livesin supported accommodation where she receives medical, financial and personal welfare assistance from the local authority. Previous diagnoses made by professionals established that she lacks the capacity to make her own decisions concerning marriage or place of residence. However, these assessments also established that she has the capacity to engage in personal, sexual relationships, a state which she is currently in with her longstanding partner. This male partner has a diagnosed personality disorder characterized by anti-social behavior, and he has resorted to alcohol misuse. The authority does not allow him to live with his partner or have long-term contact with her because he has refused medical assistance and leads a nomadic, unstable life. This unstable life was very detrimental to the woman because it disengaged her from psychiatric services leading to deterioration of her mental health. In addition, he subjected her to physical abuse and used her benefit money for alcohol abuse. On the plus side, his continued contact with her has a positive effect on the woman since she benefits psychologically from the relationship. For this reason, the local authority allows them to have supervised contact for two hours every month, although her psychiatrists believe that more contact will have a greater benefit to her. The authority is reluctant to allow increased contact to protect the woman from the physical harm he inflicts on her. The local authority referred the matter to the Court of Protection, which pointed out that the woman’s happiness is just as essential as her physical safety. In the Court’s view, the authority’s plan results in excessive interference with her personal life, and she should be allowed more contact, which is unsupervised with her partner, along with additional assistance from the authority if necessary. The first law that the authority has to consider in making the decision on whether to allow the woman and her partner more contact is the English Bill of Rights (1689). Although the Bill of rights falls in the category of common law, it is key to the protection of the rights of all cadres of individuals in the society. The notion of citizenship in democratic countries recognizes that the state bears the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens enjoy certain fundamental and alienable rights. One of these is the right to respect for private life (Lester, 1990). The schizophrenic woman is entitled to this right because the state has not restricted or outlawed the activity that she is pursuing. In this case, the activity is involvement in a sexual relationship. She is not restricted from engaging in a sexual relationship, because the local authority has ascertained that she has the capacity to make her own decisions concerning this issue. Therefore, it has no authority to make this decision on her behalf. It is crucial to note that the right to respect for private life has a direct link with the pursuit of happiness. According to Kavanagh (2009), everyone possesses the right to pursue happiness, so long as they do not infringe the rights of others or break any state law in the process. Therefore, the local authority has the obligation of providing the woman with the opportunity to pursue her happiness. Protecting her from physical harm and maintaining her continued access to psychiatric services is of enormous benefit to the woman, but her happiness is of equal benefit to her. Acquiring happiness results in immense psychological benefit to her. Therefore, the local authority should find means of balancing the woman’s increased contact with her partner, and protecting her from physical and mental harm that she is susceptible to when she is under extended contact with him. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) also plays a crucial role in the regulation of the schizophrenic woman’s activities by the local authority. This law applies to England and Wales, and its primary purpose is to provide a firm, legal framework for acting on behalf of adults lacking the capacity to make certain decisions for themselves. The primary elements of the Act are the five statutory principles, whose main function is the protection of people lacking the capacity to make certain decisions, but are also designed to maximize their ability to participate in decision-making. Statutory principles three and five apply heavily to the schizophrenic woman’s case and, therefore, the local authority and the woman’s psychiatrists should take them into account in their efforts to forge the best way forward in the safeguarding of her welfare (Martin, Barber & Brown, 2009). Statutory principle three states that a person should not be considered unable to make a certain decision simply because he makes a decision that is unwise. The local authority considers the woman’s decision regarding this issue as unwise, because she wants to spend more unsupervised time with her partner than the local authority allows her. This decision is unwise to some extent since it leads to disruption of her treatment programme, and makes her vulnerable to physical harm inflicted by her partner, whom psychiatrists have ascertained is capable of perpetrating domestic violence. In addition, it goes against her best interests since her partner has in the past demonstrated the tendency to use her support money for purchasing alcohol. However, the local authority should consider the possibility that the psychotic treatment the woman is receiving can never be fully effective if the woman is not in the right state of mind for recovery to occur. Therefore, the local authority should increase the unsupervised time she spends with her partner while at the same time integrating new measures that minimize any harm she might suffer due extended contact with him. Statutory principle five requires the local authority to put into regard the availability of alternative means, which are less restrictive on the woman’s freedom of action and rights, before making any decision or carrying out any action regarding this issue (Richard & Mughal, 2006). In this case, alternative actions which are available to the local authority include offering the woman’s partner financial assistance on condition that he accepts to receive psychiatric treatment for his anti-social personality disorder. It is imperative for the local authority to consider this option and any others that may be available, because the current action that it is implementing is exceedingly restrictive to the woman’s rights and freedoms. It violates her right to respect for private life and the freedom to make her own decisions. Therefore, the local authority should explore the availability of alternative plans of action which could be less restrictive on the woman’s rights and freedoms before settling on the current one which restricts her freedoms and rights. According to Reamer (2006) the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (2006) provides guidelines for the vetting of people who work with vulnerable adults or children. This law will be crucial in the event that the local authority decides to adopt a plan for the schizophrenic woman, which makes it possible for her to spend more time with her partner than is currently the case. This is because it will be vital for the staff responsible for taking care of the woman, to be able to identify any signs of abuse the woman might be subjected to by her partner. The local authority will allow the couple to spend more unsupervised time together, and the staff has to be more vigilant in the identification of signs of abuse or harm, since they will not be around during the meetings between the two to supervise them directly. Therefore, the local authority is responsible ascertaining that only professionals who are sufficiently qualified for this purpose are retained in the staff or recruited into it. Under the requirements of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, (2006) the local authority should put in place measures, which ensure that persons whose contribution to the staff have no positive bearing on desirable outcomes for the woman are barred from participating in efforts aimed at safeguarding her welfare. In the same list of barred persons should be included people whose contribution has a negative impact on welfare and mental health of the schizophrenic woman (Great Britain, 2006). The “No Secrets” or Adult Safeguarding Policy that the UK Department of Health designed will play a crucial role in protecting the schizophrenic woman from abuse by her partner. It provides guidance for the implementation of procedures and policies which protect adults who are vulnerable to the risk of abuse (Maldestam, 2009). The availability of this policy puts more weight to the local authority to grant the woman the opportunity to spend more unsupervised time with her partner, because it guarantees that her protection will be ensured in the wake of high risk to abuse. However, the local authority also has to consider the failures of this policy, since it has not been as successful as its formulators in the Department of Health initially intended it to be. One key failure of this policy that the local authority should review is the death of a certain Steven Hoskins in Cornwall due to failure of the local authority in that locality to abide by the provisions of the “No Secrets” policy. The Cornwall Adult Protection committee reviewed the case of Steven Hoskins and reached the conclusion that the reason behind failure of the Policy was the local agency’s failure to make connections between local issues and those of other jurisdictions (North Somerset Safeguarding Adults Partnership, 2007). This case brought to light the reality that the strength of this policy lies in its capacity to forge strong inter-agency joint protocols, which draw on good practice locally and nationally. Therefore, the local agency involved with the schizophrenic woman’s case should seek joint protocols with other local agencies to ensure that the “No Secrets” policy serves its purpose effectively in protecting the woman from physical abuse by her partner. Evidently, the local authority has to put into consideration all the mentioned laws and policies when coming up with a decision regarding the appropriate amount of time to allow for interaction between the woman and her partner. As much as the authority has the woman’s best interests at heart in attempting to protect her from harm, it should realize that she has her rights and freedoms which it should respect. Therefore, the authority should critically evaluate its options while putting into consideration all the relevant laws and policies so as to make the best possible decision. References Great Britain (2006). Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Retrieved 6 Jan 2013 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/pdfs/ukpga_20060047_en.pdf Kavanagh, A. (2009). Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lester, A. P. (1990). A British Bill of Rights, 1st ed. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Mandelstam, M. (2009). Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults and the Law. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Martin, D., Barber, P. & Brown, R. (2009). The Mental Capacity Act 2005: A Guide for Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters Limited. North Somerset Safeguarding Adults Partnership (2007). No Secrets: Policy and Procedures for Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults and from Adults. Retrieved 6 Jan 2013, from http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BFBE3144-3C92-47A5-9863-CCE7812ED590/0/Report_20090120_SafeguardingAdultspolicyl.pdf Reamer, F. (2006). Social Work Values and Ethics. Chichester: Columbia University Press. Richard, S. & Mughal, A. F. (2006). Working with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). London: Matrix Training Associates. Read More