Mental Hospitals have been around since the1850’s

Mental Health

Name:

Institution:

Date:

Mental Health

Mental Hospitals have been around since the1850’s. They have changed their practices dramatically since then. However, one thing that has remained common is admitting people into these institutions against their will. It brings the question, is it ethically and medically necessary to take such action to an individual? Perhaps, it can help a person be admitted, especially if they are refusing to seek medical attention even in cases when a patient might have tried committing suicide and are in danger. If they are in a state of mind where they cannot make decisions logically or rationally, it would be necessary for those patients to be rehabilitated. Furthermore, they could be endangering themselves or others if they fail to get the proper care of their mental health, which at times can only be achieved through holding them in the mental hospitals. This report elaborates why it is necessary to rehabilitate individuals having mental disorders against their will, although on specific backgrounds.

Some mental disorders often interfere with the behavior and functionality, thus necessitating some dramatic and rapid measures such as limiting the freedom of a person. It is significant to impose those kinds of actions to help mitigate the risk that might involve either the person harming him/herself or even others. Involuntary mental hospitalization encompasses healthy socialization between the medical and legal systems. Policies guiding the involuntary mental hospitalization are different based on the states; thus, there might be cases where individual healthcare givers are given an upper hand to rehabilitate patients against their will under specific requirements (Bowers, 2005). Such extreme conditions, in many cases, end to be life-threatening to the general public or one’s self. Those mental health caregivers do not kindly take that authority; thus, they practice absolute professionalism serving to reduce inappropriate decisions. For example, severely depressed individuals trying to terminate his/her life might face such actions if he refuses hospitalization.

If holding and forcing people in these mental hospitals against their will, its quite a fair practice, then what doctrine plays a part execution of such decisions? Also, some protocols followed to protect people from being discredited of their rights inappropriately? On such, patients with functional psychiatric disorders, who are showing behavioral signs that mental healthcare professionals think may result in imminent damage or harm to other parties or that person, and the healthcare givers can step up and initiate the involuntary hospitalization process. In numerous cases, the initial period for this process usually is short, consuming close to 96 hours except for weekends. Also, if a person who has schizophrenia is strangely demonstrating some agitated character and even attacking or threatening family members with deadly weapons, on the basis that he is being influenced, some external forces coming as auditory hallucinations.

The first involuntary confinement period of the briefing is used purposely for direct observation and evaluation. Significant documentation is gathered during emergency detention, including eye-witnesses who have experienced or seen that particular dangerous behavior. Of course, it leads to an awkward feeling to many involved. It presents quite an unpleasant condition and mood filing legal documents against one’s family members or friends, resulting in losing their freedom. Nonetheless, it would be better to do whatever is possible to make sure that the person or people you care about are okay and receive proper care. Individuals experiencing mental disorders are hospitalized and advised on how to go about the legal processes and are given access to a lawyer. More often, this initial period of 96 hours, many psychiatrists do not administer medication to these patients, not unless it is required for the well-being of the patient not to harm others or him/herself (Wang & Colucci, 2017). It possible for agitated patients to inflict harm even in a hospital setting. Somebody can only achieve the most effective way to mitigate the damage through certain psychiatric medications.

The initial hospitalization period is anticipated to help the patient develop adequate understanding and sage on volunteering to be patient and comply with treatment recommendations. In such cases, somebody can enforce no legal proceedings, and the initiation of voluntary treatment may begin. In situations where the voluntary patient does not want to stay in the hospital, the clinical team decides if the patient is consistently showing behaviors that are dangerous due to psychiatric illness. The imminent harmfulness derives the necessity for involuntary hospitalization as opposed to the presence of psychiatric symptoms (Katsakou, et. al. 2012). If the significant danger persists concerning the person’s behaviors, then a court proceeding follows briefly after involuntary hospitalization within that period of 96 hours. The patient is represented by a lawyer, although he/she must be present.

In some cases, witnesses might be present in the court, usually relatives, close friends, and health professionals. Psychiatrists mainly play a significant role in their testimonials. They give evidence and reasons as to what they think the patient’s illness is an imminent danger to the patient or even other parties who might be involved. The prosecutor would decide if the evidence presented necessitate the continued denial of the freedom to the person.

In case the prosecutor finds the evidence as vague and insufficient, the release of the patient is done imminently. Where the judge resonates with the evidence presented that indeed the illness is subject to imminent harm to either the patient or other people, a more extended period of involuntary hospitalization is pronounced by the judge to the psychiatric patient. For example, the state of Missouri serves an additional 21 days. At that period, the treatment is initiated to the psychiatric patient. That kind of treatment primarily encompasses therapy sessions and psychiatric medications. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) must not unless the court has restrained the mental health care providers (Mitchell & Selmes 2007). Using involuntary ECT needs a demonstration that proves that other treatments are not working, and the patient might respond to ECT.

The involuntary commitment period is usually long, and at this particular time, it is hoped the patient will positively respond to treatment. On numerous occasions, as the treatment is still progressing, the patients can understand that they are indeed sick, and the treatment is serving for their recovery and well-being. Several weeks during the patient’s commitment mostly help the patient to recover, though not wholly. The person might be discharged subject to an improving condition and referred to voluntary treatment where the environment is less restrictive, usually a day hospital or an outpatient setting.

There are cases where a patient might remain be sick even after the court-mandated treatment duration. Still, the patient is not demonstrating any agitated behaviors to other people or self. On such, the patient can be discharged by the treatment team and encouraged to adhere to outpatient treatment. Instances involving psychiatric patients failing to recover and are still displaying dangerous behaviors, another court hearing is conducted. The judge presides on the necessary actions that should be taken concerning the patient, even if it means additional involuntary confinement.

Somebody can raise questions if a psychiatric patient with agitated behaviors refuses treatment. In cases where a psychiatric patient has been involuntary detained, the person doesn’t need to undergo treatment. Instances, where individuals are forced to take medication or therapy sessions can only be subject to a declaration of incompetency to their decision-making. Long-term commitment periods are accustomed to having more stringent requirements than involuntary hospitalization, but only for a limited duration and is not subject to extension in the absence of proper guidelines being adhered to. The commitment may often sound like a jail sentence; however, on actual terms, regarding the responsibility can always serve to facilitate the well-being of the psychiatric patient as opposed to punishing or restricting their civil rights (Chow, 2013). It usually shows compassion and consideration of individuals needing help concerning their safety or well-being.

Unfortunately, severe depression is becoming quite too common. For some, moving the step for the recovery might mean getting hospitalized for depression. Some unguarded and unsound decisions from these patients might result in future regrets, which is better when rehabilitated. The hospital provides the perfect environment for their recovery as the patient can meet and get help from mental health care professionals. High chances are mental healthcare treatments are behind the recovery of patients with severe mental illnesses, more importantly, lowering their mortality rate significantly through emergency detention.

In conclusion, while it may sound very frightening for involuntary hospitalization, the main objective is to help individuals who cannot cope well with their mental disorders to recover. It is fair to emphasize enlightening people that involuntary hospitalization is not meant to all patients with psychiatric illnesses. In case one encounters a person displaying agitated behaviors, you should try to assist that person by reporting to stakeholders involved. By that, you may have saved the person, more importantly, ensuring there is no harm caused to other people.

References

Bowers, L. (2005). Reasons for admission and their implications for the nature of acute inpatient psychiatric nursing. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12(2), 231-236.

Chow, W. S., & Priebe, S. (2013). Understanding psychiatric institutionalization: a conceptual review. BMC psychiatry, 13(1), 169.

Katsakou, C., Rose, D., Amos, T., Bowers, L., McCabe, R., Oliver, D., … & Priebe, S. (2012). Psychiatric patients’ views on why their involuntary hospitalisation was right or wrong: a qualitative study. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 47(7), 1169-1179.

Mitchell, A. J., & Selmes, T. (2007). Why don’t patients take their medicine? Reasons and solutions in psychiatry. Advances in psychiatric treatment, 13(5), 336-346.

Wang, D. W. L., & Colucci, E. (2017). Should compulsory admission to hospital be part of suicide prevention strategies?. BJPsych bulletin, 41(3), 169-171.