HLTH510: Foundations for Mental Health Practice Written Assignment Help
Question
HLTH510: This foundation for Mental Health Practice Written Assignment is specifically taught to all Nursing Students at the University of New England aims to assess how the student critically analyses the different frameworks of mental health practice and demonstrates evidence-based learning. An essay is to be written by the student based on a case study provided in the assessment file on the deprivation an individual faces as a result of the CTOs. For this, the student will need to investigate the legal and ethical frameworks accompanying the implementation of CTOs.
Solution
By taking into account the provided nursing case study for a patient named Josh, our experts have written a comprehensive essay discussing the deprivation of a person’s freedom with respect to CTOs. Our experts have utilized different principles in Josh’s case study to discover the deprivation of freedom in his case. Additionally, it is debated whether the reasons highlighted for the deprivation are just or not.
The solution is divided into different sections: an Introduction, Deprivation of Freedom and the Justifying Principles, Just Reasons for the Deprivation of Freedom, and a brief Conclusion.
Introduction
The solution begins with a brief introduction to the debate related to the prescriptive yet somewhat coercive nature of CTOs and their legal and ethical foregrounding. You can read a snippet of the introduction below.
A Community Treatment Order (CTO) is a legal order that can be issued by a mental health tribunal or court, which requires a person with a mental illness to involuntarily comply with certain treatment conditions while living in the community (Light, 2019). CTOs are important as they allow mental health professionals to provide treatment to people who are not able to get treated themselves (Light, 2019). However, a debate is ongoing in the nation regarding the use of CTOs as some argue that CTOs can be coercive and infringe on a person’s civil liberties (Verbeke et al., 2019). While the other opinion is that it is capable of being used as a form of punishment rather than as a treatment tool (Verbeke et al., 2019).
Want to read the complete introduction? Reach out today- onlineassignmentservices1@gmail.com.
Deprivation of Freedom and the Justifying Principles
In this section, the controversy related to the involuntary mental health treatment practice nursing of CTOs is elaborated in detail, along with linking Josh’s case to some of the justifying principles that support the deprivation faced by individuals.
Deprivation of freedom refers to the restriction or removal of an individual’s liberty and autonomy, often as a result of legal or administrative action (Gooding, McSherry & Roper, 2020). In the context of mental health, deprivation of freedom may occur through the use of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), which allow for the involuntary treatment of individuals with mental illness in the community (Martin, 2019). In the current case study, Josh’s mother Alice is trying to seek help for her son through community treatment provided under CTO which can deprive Josh of his liberty to make decisions for himself. The deprivation of freedom is a serious infringement on an individual’s human rights, and as such, it must be justified by legal and ethical principles. The legal justification for this deprivation is that under the Mental Health Act 2014, Section 52(1) provides for the use of CTOs which allow for the involuntary treatment of individuals with mental illness in the community. As per the act, the deprivation under CTOs is legally justified if it is necessary to protect the individual or others from harm, or if it is required for the proper functioning of society.
Curious about how our experts have provided high-quality foundations for Mental Health Practice Written Assignment Help, reach out today- at +61 871501720.
Just Reasons for the Deprivation of Freedom
Here, some of the underlying conditions under which the deprivation of freedom of an individual is justified with a reasonable explanation are highlighted. Our experts have supported these with appropriate evidence from the contextual foundations of mental health.
There are certain circumstances in which it may be justifiable to lawfully deprive a person of their freedom, particularly in the case of individuals with mental illness. This is because mental illness can impair an individual’s decision-making capacity, leaving them at risk of harm to themselves or others (Human Rights Watch, 2020). In such cases, it may be necessary to take action to protect their safety and well-being, even if it means temporarily restricting their freedom.
Necessity
There are three main justifications for depriving a person with mental illness of their freedom that are the principle of beneficence, the principle of autonomy, and the principle of non-maleficence. The first justification is the principle of beneficence (Bifarin & Stonehouse, 2022). This principle requires healthcare professionals to act in the best interests of their patients, which includes protecting them from harm (Canzan et al., 2021). If an individual with mental illness is engaging in behaviour that poses a threat to their own safety or the safety of others, it may be necessary to take steps to prevent them from doing so. This could involve detaining them in a hospital or other facility until they are no longer a danger to themselves or others (Bifarin & Stonehouse, 2022). As can be seen from the case study, Josh has been getting into rages and punching walls, it is affecting his mother and her partner both emotionally and financially, if not physically. There is a potential risk for Alice and Martin of getting harmed by Josh’s rage. Therefore, it is necessary to deprive Josh of his freedom.
Protection of the individual as well as the public
In some cases, depriving a person with mental illness of their freedom may be necessary to protect them from harm, such as in cases of suicide risk or severe selfharm along with the protection of public (Singhal et al., 2014). The lawful deprivation of a person’s freedom in the case of protecting both the individual and the public are meant be guided by the principles of proportionality (Rains et al., 2019). As mentioned above, in cases where an individual is at risk of harm due to their mental illness, it may be necessary to deprive them of their freedom in order to ensure their safety and wellbeing. However, such deprivation must be proportionate to the level of risk and should not go beyond what is necessary to protect the individual (Rains et al., 2019). The principle of proportionality essentially states that any intervention or restriction of liberty must be proportionate to the potential harm that may occur if such intervention or restriction was not imposed (Lenaerts, 2019). This means that the degree of intrusion into the person’s freedom must be balanced against the potential risks posed by their mental health condition. Similarly, in the case of individuals who may pose a risk to the public, restrictions on their freedom may be justifiable if they are necessary and proportionate to the potential harm that they may cause (Hick, 2020). Thereby, the restriction of Josh’s freedom needs to be proportionate to not only the potential level of harm his actions would cause to himself but also to the public at large.
Legal sanction
The last justification for the deprivation of a person’s personal freedom in deciding for the mental treatment is a legal sanction. If a person with mental illness has committed a crime, they may be subject to legal sanctions that involve deprivation of their freedom (Caspar & Joukov, 2019). This lawful deprivation requires a careful balance between individual rights and public safety.
Want to know more about when CTOs become a factor of involuntary mental health treatment for individuals? Don’t hesitate to WhatsApp us at +447956859420.
Conclusion
Lastly, a brief conclusion is provided highlighting the stignificant findings of this essay. You can read a snippet of this complete section below:
In conclusion, the use of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) in mental health practice is a complex issue that raises important ethical and legal considerations. The deprivation of freedom, which is a serious infringement on an individual’s human rights, must be justified based on legal and ethical principles. The use of CTOs is legally justified under the Mental Health Act 2014 of Australia, only if it is necessary to protect the individual or others from harm, or if it is required for the proper functioning of society.
Looking for foundations for Mental Health Practice Written Assignment Help? Write to us at onlineassignmentservices1@gmail.com today!
