Mental Health Act and Protection of People With Mental Illness - Essay Example

? Mental Health Act- 1983 Mental Health Act- 1983 0. Introduction In the compilation by Golightley (2008), the Mental Health Act- 1983 is a law that is inclusive of provisions whereby a person can be admitted, treated and detained in a hospital despite their opinions regarding the same. In this Act, it is evident that the persons concerned are treated as humans with all their rights adhered to, as well as creation of an aftercare program whereby the concerned patients can undergo proper rehabilitation. As seen in the work of various analysts and researchers, mentally ill persons have faced a lot of discrimination from the society (Ramon & Williams, 2005).It is from this fact that they have been regarded as inferior and a disadvantaged group of persons. Since these persons have faced rejection severally in the society, there was need by the government to establish a system of rules and regulations that would see better treatment of the mentally ill persons. This paper shall endeavor to assess the principles and the basic functional guidelines of the Act, and how the Act has been instrumental in a move to protect the members of the public from the persons with mental illnesses as well as protect the mentally ill persons. Additionally, the paper shall aim at assessing whether the Act is itself fair, both to the public and the affected persons. 2.0. Body As seen in the research compiled by Gould (2009), mental health is a situation whereby an individual is able to function properly devoid of mental disorders, and can attain all the benefits of a normal life. Gould (2009) refers to this condition as psychological flexibility. It is reasonable, from this argument, to suggest that the subject of mental health is crucial and calls for detailed psychoanalysis by the all persons in the society. Persons with mental disabilities, as indicated in the argument by Drew, et al. (2005), have faced numerous forms of opposition and negative response from the members of the public. In the present day world, issues of abuse and seclusion of the mentally ill persons in secluded places are not unfamiliar (Drew, et al., 2005). A good number of them have gone through physical torture, as they are perceived to have been haunted by evil spirits (Drew, et al., 2005). The issues of mental disability are in this case, a collective responsibility of all the concerned persons. Engaging in campaigns against oppression of this susceptible group of people is important. In its part, the government has put a lot of effort in devising policies that would protect the rights of the mentally challenged persons. The enactment of Mental Health Act was created as a result of this concern. The Act has led to minimal cases of intolerance of the mentally ill, discrimination and harassment. The mentally ill have also managed to access forms of care that has improved their health status as vulnerable people. The Department of Health (2008) suggests that the Mental Health Act was fashioned to make sure that prior to detaining mentally challenged persons; they must be confirmed to be suffering from a mental disorder. The persons must be assessed and their infection must be termed as factual. In the case of a person being found ill, they ought to be detained and treated on the basis of their interests- the safety of their lives and that of the people around them. In relation to the Act, before an individual is detained, it is of great importance that three persons consent to that order and move by the government (Cooper, 2010).This a clear indication of how fair the Act was as the caregivers were mostly concerned with the need to ensure that both the infected and affected work in conjunction to offering help to the patient. Among the persons that consent to the detainment of the individual include a close relative to the patient as stipulated by the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP), a doctor with the necessary skills of handling mentally ill persons and a medical practitioner who is registered (Thompson, Laver-Bradbury & Gale, 2012). Wrycraft (2009) continues to argue that one of the professionals, especially the doctor must have been in contact with the patient in question. In the event that the practitioner proves that the patient is not well, and has a disorder, it is at this juncture that the Mental Health Act allows for detention of the patient. In this case, the patient will either be treated or assessed on the intensity of their illness. The Act can therefore be indicated to function solely for the safety of the patient, protect the health and safety of the members of the public as well as the interests of the mentally ill. On another viewpoint, Bartlett & Sandland (2007) indicate that in the event that the mentally ill person is not comfortable with compulsory admission to hospital, other alternatives are applicable. Among them include the patient attending medication whenever required, and a provision of an ambulance to facilitate this is provided by the Act. Zigmond (2012) also says that the patient is also allowed to have a friend and a family member of choice in interviews. Patients are also at liberty to explain their home conditions and if they can handle the same situation at the comfort of their home. Clearly, the Mental Health Act offers a practical approach of dealing with mental illness, both on the side of the patient and practitioner. Glover-Thomas (2002) indicates that under section 7-8 of the Mental Health Act, guardianship of the sections allows for the mentally ill persons to live in specified residences and attend clinic often for their treatment. Additionally, the patients are also given the freedom to visit other places such as their workplaces, public vicinities such as learning institutions among others (Puri, et. al., 2012).Patients are then free to operate as other ordinary persons in the society, and it is through minimal instances of discrimination of the mentally ill persons that have led to the recognition of their issues. The Act also gives the close relations of the patient, the power to readmit the patient to hospital in the case of no progress in their patient (Gale, Silove &Dudley, 2012). This is referred to as an administered discharge that allows for effective treatment for the concerned patients. The move by the government to implement this Act has been beneficial both to the patients and the approved caregivers as seen in section 2 of the Act (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008). Relations of the patients have been given the authorization to submit an application and also reapply for admission of their family member into the mental association (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008).With the law clear that the applicant for admission must have seen the patient 14 days prior to admission, it is convenient that the immediate affected persons sort the issue out. However, this must be assented by two health professionals who clearly indicate the degree of the mental disorder, as well as the nature of the infection. This determines the period and care given to the mental ill persons. This kind of detention shapes the health or safety of the patients, as well as the members of the public. It is only through this process that the patient can be discharged by a medical officer, the managers, the concerned family member or the Tribunal for Mental Health Review (MHRT) (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008). In the event of an emergency, mental ill persons may be admitted on the basis of urgent cases, according to section 4 of the Act (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008). A medical practitioner or a relative may apply for urgent detention, and the patient may be detained in 72 hours. Undesirable delays that result from an approval for admission by a second doctor are handled by section 4 (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008).This clearly prevents an occurrence of a worse condition from a patient’s delay in the case of urgent admission. Section 3 of the Act is also one that proves that the Act is fair both to the patient and to the public. In the thought of Great Britain Dept. of Health (2008), under the section, the Act ensures that the mental health professional ensures that patient access proper medical care to the hospital, and that the treatment is in the interests of the members of the public. Additionally the section ensures that medical care is available to the patients at all times (Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008).In the case that the patients shows a reoccurrence of the illness later on, the close kin members may reapply for treatment for 6 months, and later 12 months (Mughal &Richards, 2006).This means that the patient is always under close check by the professionals, and a re-occurrence of the same is keenly put on hold. This portrays a clear collective action between the professionals and the family members to offer medical care to the mentally challenged. The public are then protected from the nuisance of the patients, who are commonly known to cause a lot of disturbances to the society. According to Great Britain Dept. of Health (2008), the same Act, allows the police or rather gives them a go-ahead to seclude the supposed mentally ill persons from the public. This is a suggestion of the fairness of the Act to the public. Therefore, section 136, shows the assurance by the government to defend the public, and refer to these persons to hospitals and mentally ill residences. Persons may be detained up to 72 hours, until they are reviewed by a general practitioner and AMHP (Great Britain. Dept of Health., 2008). 3.0. Conclusion The Mental Health Act of 1983 is indeed an Act by the UK government to make sure that care, treatment and response to the mentally ill persons is an optimistic one. The Act has indubitably been reasonable to both the patients and the public as the two groups have had an easier time in managing the general well being of the patients, ranging from securing their property to protecting their health. The Act has been a step forward to the challenges and discrimination that the patients have faced in a long time, as the mentally ill persons have been referred to as alien over a long time. As evidenced from the Act, mental ill persons are liable for detention, a situation that has seen a step up in their present health status. The status referred to as sectioning has had more merits than negatives, as it is almost evident a mentally ill person is not able to make decisions regarding their life as seen in the essay. It is this ‘forceful’ treatment that has minimized annoyance and disturbances normally caused by the mentally ill persons. It is also imperative to note that it is this Act of 1983 that set the groundwork of the management and handling of the mentally ill and the successive amendments in 1995 and 2007. References Bartlett, P., &Sandland, R., 2007.Mental Health Law: Policy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper, D., 2010.Developing Mental Health-Substance Use. NY: Radcliffe Publishing. Department of Health., 2008. Code of Practice, Mental Health Act 1983. London: TSO. (The Stationery Office). --------., 2008. Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983. London: TSO (The Stationery Office). Drew, et al., 2005. Who Resource Book On Mental Health, Human Rights And Legislation. Available at: http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/resource_book_MHLeg.pdf. Accessed on 21st March, 2013. Gale, F., Silove, D., & Dudley, M., 2012. Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, Praxis, and Courage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glover-Thomas, N., 2002. Reconstructing Mental Health Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golightley, M., 2008.Social Work and Mental Health. London: SAGE. Gould, N., 2009. Mental Health- Social Work In Context. NY: Taylor and Francis. Great Britain. Dept. of Health., 2008.Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983.London: The Stationery Office. ---------------- 2008. Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983. London: The Stationery Office. Mughal, A., &Richards, S., 2006.Working with The Mental Health Act 1983.London: Matrix Training Associates. Puri, et. al., 2012.Mental Health Law: A Practical Guide. NY: CRC Press. Ramon, S., & Williams, J., 2005.Mental Health At The Crossroads: The Promise Of The Psychosocial Approach. NY: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Thompson, M., Laver-Bradbury, C., & Gale, C., 2012. Child and Adolescent Mental Health: Theory and Practice. London: CRC Press. Wrycraft, N., 2009. An Introduction to Mental Health Nursing. NY: McGraw-Hill International. Zigmond, T., 2012. A Clinician's brief guide to the Mental Health Act (2nd edition). London: RCPsych Publications. Read More