More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical challenges to mental health act
Legal and ethical issues in mental health nursing
Ethical challenges to mental health act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical challenges to mental health act
We as society might not agree on everything. What been agree on we need regulations and they need to be run by governments. In those governments the people should or shouldn’t use grace before law.
In the case Lopez vs. Davis the outcome is from two words. What if the person was also label as Mental illness and one of the completion is outpatient care. The health team is relaying on the patient to take meds with no system to vertified. Some mental illness Meds that cannot be trace or shown corrective use. On some activity the blood work can see ellvation. I am so puzzle with the decision for mental health that the system in place needs to be regulated or all jurisdiction need long arm statues.
In Mental illness the encounters would be in
In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years later and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis
Congress in 1990 enacted the Gun-Free School Zone Act, making it a federal offence to possess a firearm in a school zone. Congress relied on the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify passage of legislation as a way of stemming the rising tide of gun related incidents in public schools.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Lopez (1995), a twelfth grade boy, Alfonzo Lopez, brought a loaded .38 caliber firearm to his local Texas high school. After being reported to the front office, Lopez was questioned about the gun and openly admitted that the firearm was in his possession. Texas then convicted Alfonzo of a criminal statute, which prohibited the carrying of a gun on school grounds. However, the charges were dropped rather quickly when the United States Government charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
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.
It is largely understood that laws are put in place for the good of the communities which they govern. Laws are meant to reflect the wishes of the people and the general consensus is that as a result, these laws should be followed without question. In reality this is not always the case. There are often laws worth questioning whether it be for convenience, personal gain, or deep personal or moral reasons. A historical connection to the latter would be the protection of Jews from the Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler created a document outlining a death penalty for any and all persons who were caught aiding Jews in any way, small or large. Despite this law being enforced with dire consequences for infraction, there were still
In final analysis, mental illness is not being taken as seriously as an disease or a
Mental healthcare has a long and murky past in the United States. In the early 1900s, patients could live in institutions for many years. The treatments and conditions were, at times, inhumane. Legislation in the 1980s and 1990s created programs to protect this vulnerable population from abuse and discrimination. In the last 20 years, mental health advocacy groups and legislators have made gains in bringing attention to the disparity between physical and mental health programs. However, diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses continues to be less than optimal. Mental health disparities continue to exist in all areas of the world.
As time goes on, the law has put more emphasis on facility just like Bridgewater State Hospital in which many of the actions of the facility workers can face legal consequences such as facing prison time, fines, lawsuits, and etc. Society has a better understanding of why certain people act the way that they do and being more knowledgeable about psychology and mental diseases allows us to have a different approach when dealing with these topics or these individuals. In today’s era, there are many normal individuals who are willing to stand up for those who do not have a voice of their own. I believe that this change in one’s ability to stand up for another individual or group of individuals is what brought about change to the medical environment of those who are mentally
The United States of America, we have a plethora of laws, those of which may vary in importance; however, the current laws attending to the mentally ill do not suffice. Currently the most justifiable laws for this group are the Constitutional Guidelines, which state
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
According to Szasz (2005), “In principle, the mental patient is considered competent (until proven [otherwise]). In practice, the client is regularly treated as if he were incompetent and the psychiatrist who asserts that he needs treatment is treated as if he were the patient’s guardian” (p.78). During the 1940’s patients who were mentally ill were considered “legally incompetent” when committed into a mental health facility. Relatives of the patients could release them by providing care in their homes for the client. Unfortunately, Szasz (2005) claims, that “the treatment of mental diseases is no more successful today than it was in the past” (p.78).
Rights theory seems to answer our problem. Rights theory states that laws should be kept if everyone agrees with them. Rights theory also states that we should have a contract, a contract that allows us to live in harmony. For example if x wants to live in peace x should cooperate with the others and the best way to do that is to have laws that will allow that.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.