Mental Health Essays

Mental Health Essays Mental Health Paper Mental Health Paper Introduction In this essay, the author will discuss the mental health issues among the youths. The mental problems as it relate to the general health and also discuss the mental health promotions. The author will then discuss on how changes in lifestyle could improve mental health. Finally, it worth’s mentioning that there are some professional help out there for people experiencing mental problems. Mental illness can be defined as the experiencing of severe and distressing psychological symptoms to the extent that normal functioning is impaired, and one needed some form of help in order to recover, Anthony (1999). Some of the symptoms include anxiety, depressed mood, obsessional thinking, delusions and hallucinations. WHO described mental health as â€Å" a state of well-being in which the individual realises his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community†, WHO (2004). The understanding of mental health includes the awareness that mental health is broader than an absence of mental disorders, that poor mental health affects our ability to cope with and manage our lives, (Department of health and children 2006). This means that mental health and mental well-being are part of everyday life. In the area of mental health promotion, the national health promotion strategy states that† mental health is equally as important as physical health to the overall well-being of a person† and set out the strategic aim of promoting positive mental health and contributing to a reduction in the percentage of the population experiencing poor mental health. (The National health promotion Strategy, 2000-2005). Some of the strategies include; focusing on enhancement of well-being rather than illness, identifying the whole population as a target group. The author will present their argument in support of this statement, taking into account any relevant counter-arguments. As a student mental health nurse, to do otherwise would seriously affect their ability to care for patients of involuntary status or receiving coercive treatment, and create a potentially irresolvable ethical dilemma. Involuntary inpatient admission, and other forms of coercive treatment given to patients, is justified where the person is considered to be a risk to themselves or others. It is considered to be a paternalistic act of last resort where the person is seen as not possessing the competence to manage their own affairs, or where they present the possibility of harming others. Critics will argue that behaving in this matter undermines a persons’ autonomy. The problem with such highly principled statements is that they tend to overestimate the degree of autonomy available to people. Free will itself is, to a greater or lesser degree, a fantasy we indulge ourselves in. We, each of us, are a product of our environment and upbringing and our autonomy will always be limited as a consequence (Baggini and Fosl 2007). As paternalism towards children is justified due to their lack of autonomy, why not towards adults whose autonomy is limited as a result of acute mental illness? The author would agree with this assertion. Mill (2007) supported this, stating that such actions ultimately increase a persons’ autonomy and prevent any further decline. The wording of the statement, pitting needs versus needs, subscribes to the utilitarian school of thought in ethics, that of obtaining the greatest good for the greatest number. Subscribers to this school would argue that individual freedoms may be restricted if doing so protects a majority. Pure utilitarianism is problematic in that it could be used to justify gross breaches of individuals’ rights in pursuit of the â€Å"greater good†, lending weight to the slippery slope argument often espoused by critics. What constitutes an appropriate level of risk to justify coercive treatment? How great must the level of disturbance to others be? The author believes that utilitarianism has its’ place. The slippery slope argument would perhaps have some credence if such actions could be taken without justification, however in Ireland we have both the Mental Health Act (Department of Health and Children 2001) and the Mental Health Commission to safeguard service users’ rights and autonomy as far as is possible and to ensure that healthcare professionals are accountable for such actions. Also, use of such guidelines ensures that when coercive treatment is deemed necessary, it is not overt and must be justifiable (O’ Brien and Golding 2003). While it is our ethical duty to ensure that our service users receive justice, at times a sacrifice of justice may be required in order to ensure the greatest good for the community. It is thus important that all healthcare workers in the Mental Health setting foster a highly developed code of personal ethics in relation to such situations. We must also consider how this impacts on the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Some would say that by limiting a persons’ liberty, mental health services are harming them. Perhaps the person would resolve their difficulties without needing to resort to such drastic measures? However, these steps are only taken in cases where the person is believed, following assessment under strict criteria, to be a risk to themselves or others and incapable of seeing to their affairs. Again, following consequentalist theory, the author believes that it is outcomes that truly matter (Dooley and McCarthy 2005). What of the suicidal person that kills themselves? The paranoid schizophrenic that kills their neighbour, or the manic individual that spends all their life savings in a week? While this happens in a very small percentage of cases, the author believes that involuntary admission and coercive treatment are justified if even one such event is prevented. Furthermore, we must consider the effects these events have on how mental illness is perceived by the wider community, and the damaging effects of the public stigma arising from them. While hospitalisation carries its’ own stigma, negative portrayals of a small number of incidents involving people diagnosed with mental illnesses by the media causes far more damage and can lead to people being ostracised by their community, damaging support networks that may otherwise help them in staying well. It is also the authors’ experience that in many cases, a persons’ community are unaware that they have been admitted for inpatient care, whether voluntary or involuntary. In conclusion, the author believes that they have stated why they believe coercive treatment may be justified at times to protect both patients and their communities. They have shown their belief that the existence and use of strict criteria for such treatment ensures that it is not overused or abused. They have shown that such treatment follows utilitarian principles, and stated their belief that it ultimately helps improve outcomes for patients in our care, and helps protect others from any consequences of actions the person may have taken. They have shown that they do not believe that coercive treatment necessarily compromises a patients’ right to be treated with beneficence and non-maleficence, because the outcome is arguably better than would have been the case without such intervention. Finally, this argument underscores the importance of maintaining and adhering to a strong ethical code. Given the freedom to practice we are permitted in Mental Health services, we owe both the public and our patients no less.