A Need To Reform The UK Mental Health Sectioning Act 1983 - Essay Example

IS THERE A NEED TO REFORM THE UK MENTAL HEALTH SECTIONING ACT 1983? and Is There A Need To Reform The UK Mental Health Sectioning Act 1983? Introduction Mental health has been a sensitive subject in many countries, and the manner in which individuals suffering from such are treated has been a topic that has given rise to a number of arguments within the society. The issue is no different in the UK, and the way the government has tried to get involved in this particular type of healthcare has given rise to a number of questions (Scheid, 2009). These queries mostly have to do with the various legislative steps that have been taken to ensure that anyone who may be suffering from poor mental health is properly cared for. A number of people have stood in agreement with the government on these legislative acts while a separate group is of the opinion that improvements can be made to these laws to produce a better treatment of these individuals. One of these legislations in the UK happens to be the Mental Health sectioning act 1983. This particular act allows for the authorities to step in when considered necessary to ensure that an individual suffering from poor mental health gets the help that they require (Tosh, Clifton and Adams, 2010). However, the catch to this act is that the authorities are able to do this without the consent of the individual. This means that one may be forcibly taken into custody and given treatment against their wishes if the authorities deem it necessary for the sake of the person in question. In order to be able to take a stance on this act however (whether for or against) it is necessary for one to understand all the aspects that are dealt with in the UK Mental Health Sectioning Act. This can include the various definitions that are structured in this Act as well as the various parties that may be involved in its application. It should be noted that this Act is applicable to only two members of the United Kingdom, namely Wales and England (Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010). Though this should by no means downplay the essentialness of the issue, it should initially raise the question on why the other members of the UK were not as eager to participate in the application of this Act. This is not to say that there is something definitely wrong with the legislature but rather point out its level of sensitivity. It is safe to reason that should this legislature have held no doubts about its capabilities then the entire UK would have wanted to be involved in its application from the get-go. However, the issue of a forcible detainment, to put it bluntly, may not sit down well with everyone despite the fact the legislation was passed with good intent. The UK Mental Health Act 1983 This legislation dealt with the receiving, caring for and treatment of persons afflicted with mental health problems. It also deals with other related matters such as the care of the individuals’ property when they are undergoing care themselves as well as grounds for their release and the resulting process that would take place during that particular stage (Tosh, Clifton and Adams, 2010). The main talking point of this Act is the fact that the provision of this healthcare can be provided against someone’s wishes. This means that individuals who may have been diagnosed with mental health problems can be detained in hospitals and healthcare centers or even police custody until they receive adequate treatment for their mental disorder. This activity is also known as sectioning (in an unofficial capacity) and Care Quality Commission is responsible for its review and regulation. It should be noted that the legislation has actually already undergone a rigorous process of amendment that has resulted in the Mental Health Act 2007. This was not the first time that the Act had been amended as it was also adjusted in 1995 as well and had indeed replaced a number of legislative Acts before it such as the Lunacy Act 1890 and the Mental Health Act 1959 (Tosh, Clifton and Adams, 2010). The need for this somewhat steady flow of amendments and developments tend to portray the delicate nature of this subject as it reveals a need for stability. Stability in this case refers to the manner in which an individual is treated despite their mental condition as well as a protection of their rights that should be afforded an individual no matter their circumstances (McKenzie and Harpham, 2006). The Act is divided in to ten different parts that as a whole deal with the various circumstances that may be encountered when attempting to put this Act into play. These parts include: 1. The application of the mental health Act itself. 2. Forcible admission and detainment of an individual to a hospital as well as issues dealing with guardianship. 3. Persons who may fall under this act but are also in the process of serving a previous sentence or are in the midst of a trial dealing with activities of a criminal nature. 4. Consent by the individual to undergo treatment for their mental disorder. 5. The Mental Health Review Tribunal that is responsible for following the progress of an individual who may have been detained under this Act. 6. Treatments of patients within the UK with regard to their removal and/or return to places of origin. 7. The handling of the property of individuals who have been admitted under this Act. 8. The Secretary of state as well as other local authorities with regard to their functional duties. 9. Offenses that may have been committed by the individual/patient. 10. Miscellaneous and supplementary (Gask, 2009). These parts are further divided into sections. There are a total number of 149 sections under this Act. Patients who are admitted under this Act are not able to get to remove themselves from such care of their own accord but need the favorable decision of a tribunal that is set up to view their progress and determine whether the individual has actually recovered (Johnson, Turner and Link, n.d.). The tribunal is made up of three individuals, namely a lawyer, a doctor as well as a lay person. In this case, a lay person refers to an individual who is neither a doctor nor a lawyer by profession. These appeals are rarely successful however, and one can only be discharged by the Mental Health Review Tribunal if they find that the various conditions for such detention were not met. Sociological Aspects of the UK Mental Health Act There are a number of aspects that can be studied from a sociological view when dealing with the Mental Health Act 1983. Though it can be reasoned that the legislation was put in place to help those in the society that may not be able to help themselves, it can also be viewed as a means of forcible detainment and an obstruction of an individual’s rights (Tosh, Clifton and Adams, 2010). Though the individual is being given treatment for his betterment, the fact that this treatment may be given against the individual’s wishes as well as the matter of forceful detainment makes it a difficult pill to swallow to those who value the freedom of an individual to choose what they want for themselves above all else. There are a number of ways that this subject can be looked at, some of these include: Freedom of Choice/ Personal Issues As mentioned earlier, the freedom of choice is taken away from individuals who are admitted under this Act meaning one’s independency is denied them in the process. This is a large talking point especially since the Act does not accurately describe what a mental disorder is, and thus issues such as depression are also included in the definition among other less severe mind states. It can be argued that once an individual reaches legal age, they should not be forced into doing anything that they do not want to do as a matter of principal. This is a means of showing progress within the society where one is “their own boss” and thus do not have to do anything they do not want to do. Forcing an individual to undergo treatment can be seen as a form of denying one the rights that every individual should be afforded. However if this freedom of choice is hindering the improvement of an individual’s mental health, would it not be careless of the government to ignore an individual in need of help for the simple fact that he does not want to be helped. This also gives rise to the issue of whether an individual suffering from a mental disorder is in the right mind frame to make decisions for themselves (Johnson, Turner and Link, n.d.). If the particular disorder is a serious one, then it can be argued that the patient is not in their full mental capacity and thus is destined to make poor decisions even those regarding their health. The popular adage that a crazy person never admits that they are crazy may come into play here as the legislation was designed to help those who could not help themselves, this includes persons that may not even be aware that they are in need of help (Tosh, Clifton and Adams, 2010). Societal Endangerment/ Public Issues Another aspect that cannot be ignored is the threat level that an individual may pose to those around them. Depending on the mental disorder, an individual may not be in control of his actions and, as a result, may intentionally or unintentionally cause bodily harm (grievous or otherwise) to innocent individuals. In such cases, it is safe to argue that the admitting of such an individual would be for the greater good of both themselves and the public in general (Gask, 2009). It would be irresponsible of the government to allow such an individual to roam the streets at free will but it would also be inconsiderate to detain such an individual without attempting to provide treatment towards their betterment if such treatment is available. An individual who is not in control of their actions cannot be trusted to make the right choices regarding themselves and thus it can be argued that in such cases it is only proper for the individual in question to be admitted under the Mental Health Act. The management of their property would also no doubt be in jeopardy should they be allowed to continue to manage it. Looking at such a scenario, it would be safe to conclude that the implementation of this legislation would be for the sake of the individual and the society in general. Economic, Social and Communal Responsibility This aspect deals with the external groups that are involved in one way or another with the application of the Mental Health Act. These groups can be divided into two groups, namely the government and the society. The involvement of the government can be clearly seen in their creation and application of the Act, but the society that is governed have a say as well when it comes to such matters. This can be noted when one chooses to view the legislations as a collective effort on the part of the authorities and civilians as well (Aneshensel, Phelan and Bierman, 2012). Though people may not be directly involved with the admitting of such cases, it should not be forgotten that it is their taxes that provide the economic stability for such Acts to be carried out by the government. A society that is highly against a particular legislation would more than likely be able to have that legislation amended by their representatives in parliament as they are supposed to represent the will of the people (Cordess, 2001). The society can be viewed as a large community that is capable of either taking care of one another or living on an “every man for himself” basis. The application of this Act can be seen as a means of the society coming together to take care of those amongst themselves that are not able to. It can also be seen as a means of the society laying the burden on the government and letting them deal with it (McKenzie and Harpham, 2006). However, the economic standing that has kept the legislation on its feet may determine that the society has eventually found it easier to get individuals with mental health disorders the help they need than leave them free reign of their lives. It may also serve as an economic advantage in that it would be cheaper to help those in need and have them come back to the society as another contributive member than leave them free but unable to add any value to their surroundings. Conclusion The UK mental health act 1983 can be seen as legislation that is pure in its intent but with a few gaps missing to make it a clear and helpful process. Thus, it can be argued that there is indeed a need to reform the Act but this does not mean that the idea itself should be abolished (Cordess, 2001). It is the responsibility of the society to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and thus such situations cannot be ignored. The Mental Health Act 1983 can prove to be a decisive stepping stone to finally achieving the goal of ensuring that anybody suffering from a mental disorder is able to receive help. It should be ensured that this legislation, however, does not become a means of stripping honest people of their property and thus even clearer amendments on issues such as the management of property when an individual is admitted does not lead to an eventual loss of this property (Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010). There should also be clearly established guidelines on the various processes such as admission and release to ascertain that individuals do not take advantage of the Act in a bid to cause harm to unsuspecting individuals. References Aneshensel, C., Phelan, J. and Bierman, A., 2012, Handbook of the sociology of mental health. Springer, Dordrecht. Cordess, C. 2001, Confidentiality and mental health. London: Jessica Kingsley Gask, L., 2009, Primary care mental health, RCPsych Publications, London. Johnson, R., Turner, R. and Link, B. (n.d.). Sociology of mental health. McKenzie, K. and Harpham, T., 2006, Social capital and mental health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Rogers, A. and Pilgrim, D., 2010, A Sociology of mental health and illness. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead. Scheid, T., 2009, Mental health. Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Tosh, G., Clifton, A. and Adams, C., 2010, Physical health care policies in mental health trusts within the North East Midlands (UK). Mental Health Review Journal, 15(2), pp.15-20. Read More