Identification and Analysis of Legislation and Guidance to Support People with Mental Health Problem
There are two explicit bits of legislation in the U.K. that govern how individuals with psychological health complications receive treatment and care. Such include “Mental Health Act 1983 (updated by the 2007 Act)” and the “Mental Capacity Act 2005.” The Mental Health Act of 1983 provides detailed guidance on when it may be suitable for individuals with mental health problems to be admitted, detained, and treated in the hospitals counter to their wish (involuntary admission) and the safeguards to protect the patient’s rights. The Act also details the kind of support accorded for patients discharged from the hospitals (Cairns, Richardson and Hotopf, 2010, p 246). People detained by “Mental Health Act” require urgent care and treatment for mental illness and are at risk of harming themselves and their families or people around them. Compulsory detention and treatment are allowed for individuals whose mental health poses a danger for themselves and others under the Act, which recommends the doctor’s assessment before detention (Cairns, Richardson and Hotopf, 2010, p 247).
The Mental Capacity Act of 2005, on the one hand, allows individuals to make choices on persons aged 16 and onward in their best interest in cases where the patients cannot decide for themselves. The decision can be related to the treatment and detention of mentally ill patients. However, any best interest action or decision must fully comply with Act. The Mental Capacity Act addresses consent and the society’s demand in the recent past that mental health legislation must balance patients’ needs and the community. It helps determine if patients can make decisions concerning their treatment and care, and if not, a decision should be made on their behalf (Cairns, Richardson and Hotopf, 2010, p 247). The Act can help people like John to request treatment on behalf of his mother.
To further ensure the patient and their family’s safety, the Mental Health Act’s power does not end with the patient’s discharge from the hospital. For instance, according to sections 3, 37, 47 and 48 of the Act, the patients are subjected to thorough assessment to evaluate their social and health needs and are eligible after-care (Cairns, Richardson and Hotopf, 2010, p 246). The privileges are part of the “Care Programme Approach” and incorporate the social and health services agencies and the voluntary agencies to provide the best possible support and care for the patients and their families and community. The after-care support and care often continue until the agencies involved are convinced that the patient is in good status and no longer need the services (Knowles, 2003, p 30).
Perhaps additional legislation is essential that makes it is the government’s responsibility for the treatment and care for people with psychological illness. The legislation should declare that “every person shall have a right to access mental health care and treatment from mental health services run or funded by the Government” (Pavitra, Kalmane, Kumar and Gowda, 2019, p 12). This will provide great aid for families of people with mental problems, as the financial burden is often the reason for the treatment gap in many instances.
Conclusion
The essay has explored the impact of mental on both individuals and their families, using John’s case study, a 16-year-old body taking care of his mentally ill mother. As discussed in this paper, the most common mental disorders for adults and their classification include obsessive-compulsive disorders, bipolar affective disorder, and schizophrenia. The researcher synchronised schizophrenia as a mental health complication on adults and its impact on John and his family. The role theory maintains that having a family member with schizophrenia disrupts the family’s normal dynamics and may pose several constraints on the caregiver, leading to depression and anxiety and lower general quality of life. Legislations such as such include “Mental Health Act 1983 (updated by the 2007 Act)” and the “Mental Capacity Act 2005” provide guidance to support mental health patients and their families, as discussed in this essay.
Bibliography
Cairns, R., Richardson, G., and Hotopf, M., 2010. Deprivation of liberty: mental capacity act safeguards versus the mental health act. The Psychiatrist, 34(6), pp.246-247.
Caqueo-Urízar, A., Rus-Calafell, M., Craig, T.K., Irarrazaval, M., Urzúa, A., Boyer, L. and Williams, D.R., 2017. Schizophrenia: Impact on family dynamics. Current psychiatry reports, 19(1), p.2-6
Fischer, B.A. and Buchanan, R.W., 2016. Schizophrenia in adults: clinical manifestations, course, assessment, and diagnosis. UpToDate. Wolters Kluwer.
Insel, T.R., 2010. Rethinking schizophrenia. Nature, 468(7321), pp.187-193.
Knowles, J., 2003. Care and treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983. Nursing times, 99(19), p.30.
McCann, T.V., Lubman, D.I. and Clark, E., 2012. Primary caregivers’ satisfaction with clinicians’ response to them as informal carers of young people with first‐episode psychosis: a qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(1‐2), pp.224-231.
Patel, V., Chisholm, D., Dua, T., Laxminarayan, R. and Medina-Mora, M.E., 2016. Population and Community Platform Interventions–Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders: Disease Control Priorities, (Volume 4).
Pavitra, K. S., Kalmane, S., Kumar, A., and Gowda, M. 2019. Family matters!–The caregivers’ perspective of Mental Healthcare Act 2017. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(Suppl 4), S832.
Üstün, T. B., & Ho, R. (2017). Classification of Mental Disorders: Principles and Concepts. Elsevier.
Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., and Atun, R., 2016. Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(2), pp.171-178.