resourceone.info Biography Mental Health Act 1987 Pdf

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1987 PDF

Friday, July 26, 2019


An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the treatment and (1) This Act may be called the Mental Health Act, [ Short title. An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the treatment and care of . 1 of the Mental Health Act, (14 of ), the Central. THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT, lntrodncnon. Sections. CHAPTER. I. PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Defini tions. CHAPTER.


Mental Health Act 1987 Pdf

Author:WILFRED YEARICKS
Language:English, Spanish, Hindi
Country:Micronesia
Genre:Religion
Pages:426
Published (Last):23.09.2016
ISBN:224-1-76927-623-7
ePub File Size:19.87 MB
PDF File Size:16.81 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:24066
Uploaded by: SHARLENE

In India, the Mental Health Act was passed on 22 May The law was described in its Mental Health Act, "Mental Health Care Act " (PDF ). PDF | The Mental Health Act, came into force in Mental Health Authorities that were created by this Act are useful, but the present situation of not . In present study, an attempt has been made to discuss Mental Health Act, and suggestions to in but it came into effect in all the states and.

Mental Health Act 1983

Provisions of the new bill pertaining to involuntary admission are undoubtedly progressive and less cumbersome than those of the current and earlier acts. Nobody could find fault with a mental health bill leaning heavily toward human rights of the mentally ill. That is, indeed, the primary function of a mental health act. After all this is about civil detention and curtailing a person's liberty; and so, a review if asked for by the individual should be possible. Three questions spring up right away: Is this not a unnecessary and expensive overreach?

Is this feasible? The real test of implement ability of a law, unfortunately, comes only some years after it has been implemented. However, some concerns are clearly foreseeable Since in all probability, a review panel in each district will neither be necessary nor feasible in view of the very small number of mental health facilities in the country, chances are that we will end up having a panel for several districts and in case of smaller states, just one in each state.

Provision for such administrative convenience is available in the bill. What it might end up as, in the real world a year later, is a centralized court system where the patient, the family, and officers of mental health facilities line up; the patients or their nongovernmental organization representatives to file grievances over the patient having been involuntarily admitted, families with requests that patient should continue remaining admitted, and personnel from mental health facilities to justify the admission and also to submit records of all involuntary admissions and to get approvals for longer admissions.

If it sounds familiar, it is because it resembles so much the mainstream court system!

Families are by far the largest human resource in the care of the mentally ill in India and any law which for the 1st time chooses to pit the family and the patient on the opposite of the legal fence, as adversaries, is likely to frustrate the already option less families, in a resource-strapped country with nominal mental health services. The critics argue that it will sabotage goodwill and bonding, and make families less willing to be as proactive in the treatment of their wards, which, of course, would be an unmitigated disaster.

Mental Health Act (1987): Need for a paradigm shift from custodial to community care

However, what is not so interesting is the fact that the disability bill has some provisions pertaining to involuntary admission which are in apparent conflict with those in the MHCB. The new disability bill stipulates that any guardianship of a physically challenged person has to be mandated by a court, and this may come in the way of admitting and treating a mentally ill in urgent situations.

Some experts opine that when two laws differ on a point, it is the special law which will prevail, special law, in this case, related to treatment of the mentally ill being the MHCB, but as of now, it is an unresolved territorial dispute between two key ministries. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds.

No notes for slide.

Search Legislation

Mental health act 1. Deals with establishment and maintenance of psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes 5. It deals with the judicial inquisition regarding alleged mentally ill persons possessing property and its management. It deals with miscellaneous matters not covered in other chapters of the act 7. To establish central and state authorities for licensing and supervising the psychiatric hospitals 2.

To establish such psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes 3. To provide a check on working of these hospitals 4.

To provide for the custody of mentally ill persons who are unable to look after themselves and are dangerous for themselves and or, others 5. To protect the society from dangerous manifestations of mentally ill 8. To regulate procedure of admission and discharge of mentally ill persons 7.

To safeguard the rights of these detained individuals 8. To protect citizens from being detained unnecessarily 9. Though the MHA [2] has been repealed and Mental Health Care Act MHCA [3] will be in force from July , it is still pertinent to understand and analyze the judgment in the context of psychiatric practice and mental health-care delivery in India, as the concept and provisions for involuntary admission has not changed much in the new act except for some terminology.

Before analyzing the judgment, it is worth looking at the concept of involuntary admissions in psychiatry. Involuntary admissions have a legitimate role in the delivery of mental health care and are universally practiced.

The process of involuntary admissions is guided by the country's mental health legislation. The concept of unsound mind is more of how the court defines legal insanity.

However, many times, the diagnosis of mental illness by psychiatrists does not comply with the definition of legal insanity. Though the medical professional and the family agree that the person is mentally ill and in need of treatment, the law will not allow involuntary hospitalization or treatment till an unsoundness of mind is established.

Often, it is the family and friends who closely observe the individual's behavior, suspect mental illness, and discuss the matter with psychiatrists. Such an individual, when seen by a common man or a magistrate, may appear to be absolutely normal. The mental health professional, on the other hand, might like to observe such an individual for sufficient length of time to ascertain the presence or absence of mental illness.

To help the patient, his family, and the treating psychiatrist, when ILA was repealed and Mental Health Act came into effect, it had Section 19—admission under special circumstances. This section helped the hospitals to admit the patients for observation and treatment without needing a reception order from the magistrate. One encounters many clinical situations where in law considers the individual to be sane no unsoundness of mind but the relatives and the mental health professional considers him to be mentally ill and in need of treatment and care.

In the legislation, there is no mention of the problems arising from certain disorders paranoia or situations marital or family conflict that necessitate a request for involuntary hospitalization made by relatives and friends involved in a direct relationship with the individual, even though such situations are common. Consent to care is a prerequisite for all treatment. However, consent to care can vary during the course of a relationship between the patient and the health professional. In patients with mental disorders, it may not be given definitively and may change over very short periods of time as their awareness of their problems fluctuates, particularly if they are psychotic.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommends that involuntary treatment be abandoned altogether and capacity tests avoided. A common approach to assess decision-making capacity is predominantly cognitive-based functional test of the capacity of the person to provide valid consent to treatment or refusal of treatment. Recent proposals for reform in mental health law have a philosophical shift, with increasing interest in capacity-based criteria for involuntary psychiatric treatment in place of traditional risk-based systems.

It is suggested that changing from risk- to capacity-based approaches to decision-making will change the types and rates of involuntary treatment. It can also be argued that capacity assessment can sometimes be used to support nonintervention or poor care, leaving vulnerable adults exposed to the risk of harm.

One, the patient must have a mental disorder and the other, there must be a risk to the patient or others arising from the disorder.

The key ethical issue in involuntary treatment involves balancing primarily two principles: the principle of autonomy respecting the patient's wishes and the principle of beneficence the professional's responsibility to act in the patient's best interests. For a choice to be autonomous, it must be intentional, made with understanding, free from external controlling influence i.

Patient-centeredness in health care requires rights with teeth, but a balance must be maintained with the professional's freedom of right action.

The driving motivation behind recent developments in mental health law in Europe has been to protect people with mental illness conceived as a vulnerable group from the misuse of psychiatrists' powers of involuntary restraint and treatment.

However, in protecting rights through legislation, there is a danger of an excessively bureaucratic and legalistic approach to clinical work, which in turn may lead to unsatisfactory treatment to the patient. Autonomy versus family-centered decision is one of the main connectors of differences between western and eastern societies.One method is to obtain the opinion of two psychiatrists independently and also the consent of the hospital RMO or superintendent who acts as a surrogate guardian 2.

Such capacity can be limited or restricted when individuals become unable to protect their own interests. For a choice to be autonomous, it must be intentional, made with understanding, free from external controlling influence i.

However, little actually changed in terms of improved care for the mentally ill. While the bulk of caring for persons with mental illness in countries like India still rests with families, social systems of care have a huge responsibility in the care of the mentally ill in some countries. This makes even the multispecialty hospitals and general hospitals under the purview of the act for registration as MHE and these hospitals may not register due to unnecessary fears which may lead to decreased treatment options for PMI.