Deprivation Of Liberty Safeguards : A Best Interest Assessment

Tim has a long history of mental illness and was admitted to the ward following a deterioration in his mental illness after he lost contact with his son. His mood was elevated and he felt very restless and agitated. Prior to admission, he was found police in a very distressed state. Tim was placed on a section 2 of the mental health act (DH, 2007) and was originally observed generally where a member of staff would have to see him face to face on a hourly basis (NICE, 2005). Under section 2 of the mental health act Tim has lost the right to leave hospital at will and his responsible clinician has not granted him section 17 leave. A person can be detained for up to 28 days and treat against their will (DH, 2007). As Tim was detained it was important for staff to keep him on the ward.

The Mental Capacity Act is legislation which increases the legal rights of the person with dementia to be involved in decisions about their own health and care. The Act also means that when somebody no longer has the mental capacity to be involved in decision making themselves, their carer will have the right to be consulted about decisions being made on behalf of the person with

Valuing People Now 2001; Putting People First 2007; Human Rights Act 1998; Mental Health Act 2007; Mental Capacity Act 2005; The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; Disability Discrimination Act 2005; safeguarding children and vulnerable adults policies; key aspects of current related legislation for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Unit 16 Understand Safeguarding of Children & Young People (for those working in the adult sector) and Unit 14 Safeguarding and Protection of Vulnerable Adults Assignment

The key legislations include , Human Rights Act 1998 , Mental Capacity Act 2005 , Adults and Incapacity Act 2000 , Mental Health Act 1995 , Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and Carers Equal Opportunities Act 2004.Each and every

At what point is an individual considered mentally unwell and in need of treatment and importantly who has the authority to determine their mental wellbeing? The Mental Health Act 2014 indicates the criteria for compulsory treatment is directed by a context whereby an individual is considered to be at risk of serious harm to themselves or others (Mental Health Act 2014, p. 16). This legal framework in which the Act is situated establishes a precedent for interrelated institutions to ascribe to. Notably, the Act stipulates compulsory treatment should only be considered when

1.1 What is the impact of the Mental Health Act, and the Mental Incapacity Act (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) on individuals who are living with the experience of dementia; with regards to minimising the risks of harm whilst at the same time enabling rights and choices for the individual?

This act is made to help protect those who are unable to make decisions for them. This could be due to a mental health condition, a learning difficulty or a brain injury. The purpose of this act is to allow adults to make as many decisions for them as possible. For example, somebody with dementia might make a decision about whether they want future medical treatment or not. This act links to people who are suffering with dementia as within the later stages of dementia they are unable to make decisions for themselves and consequently, the Mental Capacity Act ensures that the individual has somebody to make the decisions for them.

Assignment overview In this assessment you will explore aspects of employment law, your role and responsibilities in respect of employment practices and present an issue of public concern that has occurred within either the health, social care or children’s and young people’s sector. Additionally, you will create a career plan which reflects on your continuing professional development and related learning and possible future qualification opportunities.

The main aspects of this act are that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity, the person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success, a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision simply because he makes an unwise decision, an act done or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests and before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person's

Article 4 of the act intrigues to me because of the language used to change the fact that it could come across as discrimination. Impairment in other words means ‘abnormality’ which could come across as belligerent to those who suffer with psychological disorders, this then would present them as ‘lesser’ and therefore more likely to prejudice comments. However the word ‘impairment’ implies that someone isn’t able to lead a normal life and in some cases that is untrue. Recently the government has canvassed through radio and posters to convince the public that there is nothing wrong with having any psychological disorders, and these people shouldn’t be marginalised. Some people use the word ‘mental disorder’ when describing someone with a mental health problem because it again leads these people to be marginalised and have prejudice thoughts about them all the time. Additionally, these certain people do have amazing talents, have successful lives and have a normal life because their society has been taught different.

The Mental Capacity Act was passed in 2008 in Parliament so that Singaporeans can appoint proxy decision-makers before they become mentally incapacitated by illnesses like dementia or brain damage. The Act, which came into force on 1 March 2010, is broadly modelled on the UK’s own Medical Capacity Act 2005 (Gillespie, 2010) and individuals can do so through a new statutory mechanism called "Lasting Power of Attorney" or LPA – which enables adult individuals to prospectively appoint one or more persons they trust, to act and make decisions in their best interests, in the event that they should lose mental capacity (MCYS 2010). Many have welcomed it as a timely measure to address the social realities of a fast ageing

It must be remembered that just because a person has a mental health diagnosis or is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 does not necessarily mean that they lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. The MCA applies to people with mental health problems only when they experience a mental health problem that affects their ability to make a particular decision. For some people, the ability to make certain decisions is permanently affected as a result of their experience of mental illness. However, many people who experience mental health problems are capable of making all of their own decisions. For others, the ability to make some decisions is affected occasionally and only for short periods.

Policies have an important role in regulating and shaping the values in a society. The issues related to mental health are not only considered as personal but also affecting the relationships with significant others. The stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health can be traced to the lack of legislation and protection of rights (Rodriguez del Barrio et al., 2014). The policy makers in mental health have a challenging task to protect the rights of individuals as well as the public (Swigger & Heinmiller, 2014). Therefore, it is essential to analyse the current mental health policies. In Canada, provinces adopt their own Mental Health Acts (MHA) to implement mental health services. As of January 15, 2016, there are 13 mental health acts in Canada (Gray, Hastings, Love, & O’Reilly, 2016). The key elements, despite the differences in laws, are “(1) involuntary admission criteria, (2) the right to refuse treatment, and (3) who has the authority to authorize treatment” (Browne, 2010). The current act in Ontario is Mental Health Act, 1990.

Jennifer, you bring up excellent points about how certain mental conditions, and how the protection of life may alter a person’s ability to receive those fundamental rights because they are unable to make clear decisions regarding their care. That is why the due process in the civil commitment procedure is necessary because those basic rights are being impacted while removing the essential freedoms of those individuals. They have to be determined a danger to themselves, others, or society as a whole for the emergency 72-hour hold to be initiated. Individuals can have thoughts that are not realistic and be considered ok; then it validates a psychiatric evaluation or screening by the prepetition screening team (PST) to review the matter and decide