Human rights

Author(s):  
Jamie Fellner

In this chapter, North American and international issues are reviewed covering the range of human rights issues, challenges, and controversies that exist in correctional mental health care. This chapter provides a brief overview of the key internationally recognized human rights that should inform the work of correctional mental health professionals. Human rights reflect a humanistic vision predicated on the foundation of human dignity, which complement the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. The human rights framework supports correctional mental health staff in their efforts to protect patients from harm and provide them the treatment they need. Human rights provide a universally acknowledged set of precepts that can be used during internal and external advocacy. Mental health professionals should not – consistent with their human rights and ethical obligations – acquiesce silently to conditions of confinement that harm prisoners and violate human rights. They are obligated not only to treat inmates with mental illness with independence and compassion, but to strive to change policies and practices that abuse inmates and violate their rights, even those that involve custodial decisions (e.g. segregation, use of force, restraints). In short, for practitioners who want improved policies and practices, human rights offers a powerful rationale and vision for a different kind of correctional mental health services. The more correctional mental health practitioners embrace and advocate for human rights, the greater the likelihood prisoners’ rights will be respected.

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Sim ◽  
Brian Hallahan ◽  
Colm McDonald

AbstractObjectives: The aim of this study was to determine the views of both individuals attending the mental health services (attendees) and mental health professionals in relation to how attendees and staff should be addressed, how attendees should be described, and how staff should be attired.Methods: We surveyed 132 attendees of the West Galway Mental Health Services and 97 mental health professionals in relation to how they prefer to be addressed (first name/ title and surname/ no preference) the description of attendees (patient / client / service user / no preference) and the attire of mental health staff (casual / smart / no preference). We also ascertained how mental health professionals believed attendees would view these issues.Results: Attendees preferred to be described as patients rather than clients or service users by all mental health professionals, with 46-54% of attendees preferring this term “patient” compared to 14-17% preferring the term “client”, 11-13% preferring the term “service user” and 20-25% having no preference (p < 0.001). They preferred to address doctors by their title and surname (61%) but other mental health professionals by their first names (60-69%) (p < 0.001). Attendees had a strong preference for being addressed by their first names by all the mental health professionals (86-91%) (p < 0.001). Doctors preferred to be attired formally (88%), compared to nurses (50%) or other mental health professionals (42%) (p = 0.002). Attendees had no preference in relation to the attire of doctors but preferred other mental health professionals to be attired informally.Conclusions: The study demonstrates that despite the increased use of several non-medical terms to describe attendees of mental health services; the preferred term of attendees of the psychiatric services in both in-patient and out-patient settings remains ‘patient’. However, this is not universally the case, and the ascertainment of the preference of the attendee at the first encounter with the health professional should be ascertained. We also demonstrated that attendees preferences in relation to both “dress and address” of doctors is significantly different to their preference for nurses or other allied mental health professionals; which may reflect a wish for a less familiar and more formal interaction with doctors.


1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin Andrews

The treatment of persons with mental disorders is advancing rapidly. New epidemiological information has allowed the magnitude of the task to be specified. A census of mental health professionals has allowed the workloads to be determined and organisational models which focus on treatment in the community established. As diagnosis is the first step in treatment it is timely that new, computerised structured diagnosis interviews are available. Treatment evaluation likewise is able to suggest that medication and cognitive behaviour therapy backed by good clinical care are the keys to good patient treatment. The two major problems that follow mainstreaming of the treatment of persons with mental disorders are the reallocation of money to treatment in the community, and the education of mental health staff to diagnose and deliver the proven effective treatments.


2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Marquis ◽  
Janice Holden

This study assessed mental health experts' comparative evaluations of the two existing published idiographic intake instruments, the Adlerian-based Life-Style Introductory Interview (LI) and the Multimodal Life History Inventory (MI), along with Marquis' (2002; in press) newly developed Integral Intake (II), grounded in Ken Wilber's (1999d) integral theory. Fifty-eight counseling/psychotherapy educators and experienced mental health practitioners perused the three instruments and then used the author-developed Evaluation Form to respond to open-ended questions, as well as to rate and rank them on 11 dimensions: the instrument's overall helpfulness, comprehensiveness, and efficiency, and 8 fundamental dimensions of clients (thoughts, emotions, behaviors, physical aspects, culture, environmental systems, spirituality, and what is most meaningful to them). Respondents evaluated the LI consistently worst, and the II better than the MI on all three instrument dimensions and four of the eight client dimensions. We discuss the II's potential to become a standard in the field of mental health counseling.


2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Kavanagh ◽  
Lea Greenaway ◽  
Linda Jenner ◽  
John B. Saunders ◽  
Angela White ◽  
...  

Objectives: To determine opinions and experiences of health professionals concerning the management of people with comorbid substance misuse and mental health disorders. Method: We conducted a survey of staff from mental health services and alcohol and drug services across Queensland. Survey items on problems and potential solutions had been generated by focus groups. Results: We analysed responses from 112 staff of alcohol and drug services and 380 mental health staff, representing a return of 79%% and 42%% respectively of the distributed surveys. One or more issues presented a substantial clinical management problem for 98%% of respondents. Needs for increased facilities or services for dual disorder clients figured prominently. These included accommodation or respite care, work and rehabilitation programs, and support groups and resource materials for families. Needs for adolescent dual diagnosis services and after-hours alcohol and drug consultations were also reported. Each of these issues raised substantial problems for over 70%% of staff. Another set of problems involved coordination of client care across mental health and alcohol and drug services, including disputes over duty of care. Difficulties with intersectoral liaison were more pronounced for alcohol and drug staff than for mental health. A majority of survey respondents identified 13 solutions as practical. These included routine screening for dual diagnosis at intake, and a range of proposals for closer intersectoral communication such as exchanging client information, developing shared treatment plans, conducting joint case conferences and offering consultation facilities. Conclusions: A wide range of problems for the management of comorbid disorders were identified. While solution of some problems will require resource allocation, many may be addressed by closer liaison between existing services.


Author(s):  
Adam J. Rodríguez

The assessment of egg and sperm donors is an important area of niche practice for mental health professionals. With the appropriate training, mental health practitioners can offer these much-needed services to prospective parents who are using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to deal with infertility. Due to the invasiveness of these procedures, as well as their physical and emotional ramifications, many clinics and hospitals require a psychological evaluation of any individual who provides egg donation or becomes a gestational carrier or surrogate. This chapter describes the details of this niche area of practice and how the author developed an interest in it. The author covers its joys and challenges, the business aspects of this area of practice, guidance on developing this niche area of practice, and resources to assist in this process.


2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S486-S486
Author(s):  
N. Semenova ◽  
A. Palin ◽  
I. Gurovich

IntroductionStress and burnout are clearly problems for mental health workers. In this paper, we present data from research study on moderators of burnout in mental health staff.Objectives/aimsThe purpose of this study was to explore the phenomenon of resilience as experienced by Russian mental health clinicians working in a highly demanding, specialized and stressful environment (e.g., staff shortages, health service shortages, not being notified of changes before they occurred).MethodsThe study used a range of self report questionnaires. Measures included a demographic checklist, the Hardiness Survey (Maddi 1984), and the GCOS – The General Causality Orientation Scale (Deci & Ryan 1985). The participants for this study were drawn from Medico-rehabilitation Unit, Psychiatric hospital, – the disciplines of psychiatry, clinical psychology and nursing. In all, 10 ward based mental health professionals were surveyed.ResultsThis paper outlines the results of these measures. This in turn allows us to develop intervention strategy to ensure an effective provision, which depends on satisfied professionals, who have a sense of ownership over what they do and an ability to shape the direction of their endeavours.ConclusionsThe study's findings have the potential to inform organizations in mental health to promote resilience in clinicians, to deliver stress management interventions for staff with the potential to reduce the risk of burnout and hence staff attrition, staff retention and mental health.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Kinner ◽  
C. Harvey ◽  
B. Hamilton ◽  
L. Brophy ◽  
C. Roper ◽  
...  

Aims.There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.Methods.In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.Results.In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.Conclusions.There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Kris Gledhill

<p align="LEFT">The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for detention and also for treatment which would otherwise be an assault. As such, it allows for interference with the fundamental rights to liberty and to self-determination. Particularly as it does so in the context of a branch of medicine which is often highly subjective, it is hardly surprising that litigation is occasionally resorted to by those affected who wish to challenge the legality of what is occurring to them.</p><p align="LEFT">The framework for this litigation has developed, spurred on in particular by the growth of public law and human rights law. As a result, mental health professionals have to be familiar not just with the court-machinery which is central to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine the legality of the ongoing detention of a patient, and refers the issue of the displacement of a nearest relative to the county court) but also with the courts which deal with questions of public law (in particular the Administrative Court) and the civil litigation courts.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document