Issues relating to involuntary commitment laws revolve around patient autonomy used for and against involuntary treatment. The restoration of autonomy in patient who were once unable to make their own decisions was the goal of treatment. It was presumed that patients in need of treatment were also incapable of decision making. An argument can be made that ethical principles are the underlying the reasoning’s for the promotion of good, and the prevention of harm rather than patient autonomy. Patient autonomy comes from Emmanuel Kant’s ideal of respecting the person, which takes into account the patients liberties. The law and ethics sometimes created a conflict, and it was commonly argued that there is room for the different interpretations …show more content…
In a government study a psychiatric specialist said it might be carried out through a conversation with the physician saying, “I am worried about you, and so I am considering whether to order involuntary treatment if you do not agree to be admitted voluntarily (Medscape).” In a 2005 Medscape article studies suggested there a correlation between the involuntary placement of mentally ill patients, coercive measures and outcomes. The research on attitudes towards involuntary treatment and the perceived coercion suggests an acceptance of coercive measures even if the legal conditions are defined …show more content…
During a psychiatric crisis, there are specialized crisis services that play a crucial role in de-escalating the situation. States enacted legislation to enhance crisis services to improve access to emergency mental health care (nami.org). Acute in-patient care, such as the care dealing with psychiatric holds, states have borne a heavy burden since federal law prohibits Medicaid impatient care for non-elderly patients in facilities with 16 or more beds and more 51 percent have a mental illness. With the indication of a policy change needed, ACA to authorize CMS to allow for the reimbursement of acute psychiatric inpatient services for adults 19 to 64 to “allow higher quality of care at lower
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
The ethical principle of nonmaleficence demands to first do no harm and in this case protect the patient from harm since she cannot protect. Nurses must be aware in situations such as this, that they are expected to advocate for patients in a right and reasonable way. The dilemma with nonmaleficence is that Mrs. Boswell has no chance of recovery because of her increasing debilitating mental incapability and the obvious harm that outweighs the intended benefits. If the decision were to continue treatment, suffering of the patient and family would be evident. Autonomy is the right to making own decisions and freedom to choose a plan of action. When making decisions regarding treatment of another person, it is important to respect the expressed wishes of the individual. John says that his mother would want to live as long as she could, but questions arise related to her quality of life and perception of prolonged suffering by prolonging the dying process. In BOOK states that quality of life changes throughout one’s life ...
Gupta, M. (2001): Treatment refusal in the involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric population: Canadian policy and practice. In: Medicine and Law, Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 245-265.
Few issues will motivate Americans to put down their cheeseburgers and pick up a shotgun faster than the threat of infringement upon their civil liberties. The right to choose what toothpaste to buy, what color socks to wear with those sandals, or what spiritual doctrine to follow, is fiercely defended by both conservatives and liberals alike. In fact, this commitment to personal liberty is what defines us as Americans, and sets us apart from the rest of the world (even if only in our own minds). This attitude is embodied in our presidential rhetoric:
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a topic, which proponents often support by the affirmation of patient free will or as the exercise of patient autonomy. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument further from an inter-disciplinary approach, regarding PAS from medical, ethical and legal standpoints and to examine the concept of free will from the philosophical discipline. Are these concepts compatible in a meaningful context and can a sound argument be constructed to support PAS on the basis of patient free will?
Forcing someone to take medication or be hospitalized against their will seems contrary to an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, however, the issue becomes complicated when it involves individuals suffering from a mental illness. What should be done when a person has lost their grasp on reality, or if they are at a risk of harming themselves or others? Would that justify denying individuals the right to refuse treatment and issuing involuntary treatment? Numerous books and articles have been written which debates this issue and presents the recommendations of assorted experts.
Until the middle of the last century, public mental health in the United States had been the responsibility, for the most part, of individual states, who chose to deal with their most profoundly mentally-ill by housing them safely and with almost total asylum in large state mental hospitals. Free of the stresses we all face in our lives, the mentally-ill faced much better prospects for peaceful lives and even recovery than they would in their conditions in ordinary society. In the hospitals, doctors were always accessible for help, patients were assured food and care, and they could be monitored to insure they never became a danger to themselves or others. Our nation’s state hospital system was a stable, efficient way to help improve the lives of our mentally disabled.
...ed individuals to pay for services, perhaps as an extension of the Medicare program. Those survivors, who have suffered a high level of mental or physical trauma, and those who suffer from preexisting conditions, should be identified and considered for expedited care. (2, 425) Mobile health care unity could be utilized in semi-permanent housing developments, such as the trailer parks created in the wake of the Katrina disaster. (2, 425) Legislative barriers to obtaining mental health services need to be removed. Addressing the mental health needs of the survivors is increasingly being recognized as an integral part of emergency management worldwide. Failing to properly address these needs may compromise the recovery of the affected populations, and these individuals are likely to become dependent on state and federal aid. (2, 246)
Torture, for weeks, for months, for years, but it is somehow plausible to consider it help. The sane being shoved into a psych ward, drugged, and forced with erroneous treatments, yet this is regarded as the panacea? Mental institutes do not solve everyone’s problems. Forced treatment on the resistive or illegitimate mentally ill exemplifies the need to regain civil rights for patients. The current laws applied to the topic remain not enough to withhold these patients’ civil rights. Also, patients bias court cases while influenced by prescribed drugs. The stories and results of these foul acts are tremendously horrifying. As Americans we are born with our civil rights therefore these persons deserve justice.
This literature review is focusing on discussing the effects of seclusion and restraints on treatment consequences of patients in mental health area. Seclusion and Restraint are used for controlling the behavioral patterns of the mentally ill patients in different surroundings consisting of psychiatric management facilities and hospitals (Kentley, 2009). Over past decade, comprehensible consensus has come out that seclusion and restraints are secure interventions of last alternative and application of those interventions should and can be diminished significantly (Knight, 2011). However, recent studies indicated that it is traumatic for patients experiencing or witnessing restraint and seclusion traumatic; patients can feel high levels of anxiety, fear, and anger once aware that restraint is going to take place, sometimes it could resulting in an exacerbation of patient’s mental status (Stewart et al, 2010). Due to the humanitarian, ethical, and legal issues which could lead to, seclusion and restraints are known as the most controversial management strategies (Holmes, Kennedy & Perron, 2004). Previous studies and researches could not analyze this topic adequately; thus, further researches and studies related to the effects and risk managements of using seclusions and restrains will be discussed in below.
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
In the nineteenth century the United States had established hospitals to house and care for the chronically ill and mentally ill. Several individual states assumed responsibility for mental hospitals in the 1980’s. At the beginning of the twentieth-century mental health treatments proved to have limited efficacy. Many of these patients received custodial care in state hospitals. New psychiatric medications were developed and introduced into state mental hospitals in 1955 as a result of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH).The medicines that were developed brought new hope and addressed some of the symptoms of mental disorder. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy enacted the Community Mental Health Centers Act. This accelerated deinstitutionalization.
The principle of autonomy states, that an individual’s decision must be respected in all cases, also an individual can act freely in accordance to their plan. For example, in a case where a patient and family demands to continue medical or surgical care and a physician want the patient to stop further treatment. In this case the patient’s choice will matter the most. According to the principle of autonomy it will be the patients and family choice whether to continue or discontinue treatment. The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her. These principles are what healthcare provider use to help and guide patients with the ...
States obtain many services that fall under mental health care, and that treat the mentally ill population. These range from acute and long-term hospital treatment, to supportive housing. Other effective services utilized include crisis intervention teams, case management, Assertive Community Treatment programs, clinic services, and access to psychiatric medications (Honberg at al. 6). These services support the growing population of people living in the...
I believe that individuals should not be involuntarily treated because there has been a history of people being wrongly treated for acting deviant or breaking norms rather than having a mental disorder. As we have seen throughout research done there is inconsistency on how is dangerous to themselves and others. People may make the case for involuntarily treating those who are threat to themselves and others but psychiatrists have a tendency to over predict individuals who seem dangerous. There has been history of involuntarily treating women and homosexuals because they were acting deviant and thus labeled crazy and put in mental institutions. It was later found it that it was unethical and many of them were not mentally disordered.