what two pieces of Scottish legislation influence the way care and support are delivered to those with mental?
925328
Look on the department of health website
737501
Objectives: Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 empowers the police to detain those suspected of being mentally ill in public places, and convey them to a place of safety. In practice, accident and emergency (A&E) departments are often used. The authors assessed levels of knowledge of section 136 between A&E doctors, senior nurses, and police constables. \nUnder the Mental Health Act 1983 Section 136 “if a constable finds…a person who appears to him to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control…he may…remove that person to a place of safety”. A place of safety is defined as ‘hospital, police station, mental nursing home or residential home or any other suitable place’. It is widely recognised that police cells are not appropriate places of safety for people with mental health problems but in many areas a police station may still be the first and not the last resort as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act due to a lack of other resources.
752419
Are you talking about scottish parliament here? They tried to pass a holyrood bill but it hasn't actually been passed yet - they're still discussing it.\n\nhttp://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=114&id=1692062006\n\nPhone in ill. What does the boss expect on new years day!?
321228
yeah. kindly check this webiste: \nhttp://www.wales-legislation.org.uk/en/acts/539/2
17362
One of the rights everyone has is to be prevented by others from harming\noneself.  But the laws on this are pretty strictly drawn in most states.  To be\nhospitalized in a mental health ward against one's will, can only be done if\na person is judged to be an IMMINENT danger to oneself or others, and/or\ngravely disabled, the latter meaning one cannot deal/provide for the basic\nnecessities of life -- all these criteria under this further condition: BASED ON\nmental illness.  So when a mother some years back wanted me to do an\ninvoluntary hospitalization, because her kid was running with a gang which\nshe viewed as harmful to him, I had to explain the "based on" condition \nwritten into the law.   Moreover, an involuntary hospitalization is usually \nknown as a "72 hour hold" -- after which the hospital  staff would have to go to the judge and seek a 'short term certification', usually 30 days, after that\nback to court again, sometimes for a longer term.  But those judgments are\nnot lightly given, because another part of the law, at least in many states, is\nthat patients be in "THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE SETTING" during all phases of\ntheir care, unless the aforesaid issues of harm came into play.\n\nFinally, straight jackets are seldom used.  Some facilities, including jails and\nlocked youth facilities, have literally a rubber room -- every surface covered\nwith soft rubber.  If they did not, a violently angry teenager who has been \nthrough simply horrendous abuse, would hurl herself or himself at an iron\ndoor, head first, to do as much damage as possible.  Underneath it all they\nare effectively saying, "You wanna hurt me.  I'll hurt me, and I'll do it so bad\nyou and no one else will ever forget it -- so bad you and this staff here\ncould not match me in their wildest dreams, because i will harm myself\nbeyond imagination."   I've heard kids say this, then hurl themselves against\nan iron door, doing as they say, terrible damage.   But one of their rights\nis to be protected from acting out that anger, since it effectively allows the\nabuser to get another period of pain out of them.  And that's not ok -- our\njob is to keep them safe until we can work with them to the point where they\nsee that the best response to abuse is to say, "you (the abuser) are not going\nto get one more second out of my life.  And I will have a happy and wonder-ful life in spite of you."\n\nEveryone has a right to get to that point, even if it takes a straight jacket to\nkeep them safe long enough to get there.\n\nAnd the adjective "gay" in your question should be utterly irrelevant and\nimmaterial to the entire set of perameters I have described.   Fortunately\nsociety is going through a sea change in its acceptance of gay people\n(though it certainly can't happen fast enough).  But you will quickly find that\nno licensed professional, and no credentialed institution will dare base any\nof their treatment of an individual on his/her sexual preference.   Already\nI believe we have passed the tipping point in that regard, though it may not\nbe evident to residents of certain towns, cities, and states.
728552
It depends on whether it involves family members or not. Two totally different sets of laws and standards.
813241
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/policy/policy-6435.cfm\n\nI hope this helps...scroll all the way down to the bottom, there is a phone number...what a kind offer artic ranger who answered above gave you....
814034
If I understand your question correctly, I would say the following psychosocial family issues would affect nursing care:\n\n1. Child/Spouse abuse\n2. Pregnancy in an underage, unemancipated teen\n3. Eating disorder in an underage, unemancipated teen\n4. Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia\n5. Any chronic psychological condition, i.e., schizophrenia, etc.\n6. Any terminal illness
116950
I have worked with individuals with mental disabilities and it is no different than taking care of yourself.  I was taught to treat them like they are normal like myself.  Once you get to know the individuals, then it is easier.  You will know their wants and needs even though some of them can't relay a message.  Your question needs to be a little specific.  Their are all types of individuals with mental disabilities who need to be cared for differently.  For instance some are in wheelchairs and can't do anything, others can walk, talk, but a little slow.  When I went into this job, I didn't need to go to school, just mostly was hands on learning.  The most important information you need to know is CPR, basic first aid training, fire safety training, how to maintain yourself in a crisis, and most importantly how to deal with all types of behavior.
680052
Pro..A person can not be held responsible for their actions if they are so menatlly disturbed that they don't even know right from wrong and have no grasp on reality.With that said, I do believe that it is time to start putting people who have such serious mental disorders back in institutions.In California, among many states, the policy is to only hold a very small number of disturbed people.There are thousands, state wide, of people who have no business wondering the streets.They are a danger to themsleves and to everyone around them.But I do think that the guidelines for determing who is insane should be very stiff.And in most cases they are anyway.
699832
There are four distinct subcategories of mental disorder stipulated in Section 1 of the Act - mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder.\n\nThese categories are not well defined in the Act, indeed, mental illness is not defined at all. Mental impairment is defined as "a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind ... which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned". Severe mental impairment has a similar definition but with the word "significant" replaced with "severe". Psychopathic disorder is defined as a "persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct".\n\nThese categories do not necessarily correspond to medical categories of mental disorder such as those outlined in ICD-10 or DSM-IV; the type of mental disorder afflicting a particular person is very much left up to the clinical judgement of the individual doctor. However, the category "mental illness" is thought by most psychiatrists to cover schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, major depression, bipolar disorder and other similar illnesses, "(severe) mental impairment" to cover mental retardation (learning disability) and "psychopathic disorder" to cover the personality disorders.\n\nThere are very few exclusions to these definitions of mental disorder. The Act states that one cannot be suffering from a mental disorder "by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct, sexual deviancy or dependence on alcohol or drugs".
696455
Umm, yeah sure. They should be more understanding of people with mental illness.\n\n(Don't forget to take your meds)\n\nCheers.
274712
Over the centuries and millenia, persons with mental disorders have been vilified and feared.  Persons with disorders have been drugged, locked away, chained to walls, shunned from society, killed, been used as experiments for brain exploration (such as holes drilled in their heads, lobotomys on their brains performed), etc.\n\nOnly in the recent decades has mental illness found a more receptive audience in the Medical Community as well as the General Public, with the recognition that many of the problems can be altered or treated with medications and social interventions.\n\nOne of the recent problems developing has been attempts by the Government to reduce the expense of caring for these sorts of individuals in large sequestered groups by attempting to place them into the community.  OStensibly this was supposed to make life better for them, but, in fact, has made things worse since there are fewer interventions available and less direct supervision.\n\nMany of these individuals have committed crimes (whether intentional or not) and have simply been moved from close supervision in Facilities to Prisons and Jails.. a different sort of institution but with basically the same sorts of controls they need to function with their limitations.\n\nUntil the government realizes that there is an actual and real need for sequestering for safely and monitoring, persons will continue to get lost in between the cracks.\n\nMy sons are both Autistic, and the strides made even in the last decade has been remarkable.
166474
This is a general site that helps you find the right help for all such needs...\n\nhttp://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/index.cfm
913698
If a person is inpatient at a psychiatric hospital, they are usually a danger to themselves or others.  There they can be medically monitored, medicated and restrained if necessary to be safe.  Once they have calmed down, they will have therapy several times a day and try to fix what can be fixed.  Hopefully when they leave and stay on their medications, continue outpatient therapy.....they will no longer be a danger to anyone and can work and live normally.  That's how it's supposed to work.  For the most part it does.  Some people are just unable to live outside of an institutional setting and that's a damn shame.
668811
I have run a community based mental health unit for many years within the NHS. (STATE HOSPITAL).\nI am truly sorry that you have had such a bad experience whilst receiving mental health care. May I assure you that this is not the case everywhere. If I overheard a member of my staff speaking like that to any patient they wouldn't have a job for very long. Complaints of this nature are taken very seriously in our hospital trust, patient dignity is a paramount concern. The underpinning philosophy of care at my unit is:\n'People will forget what you said,\nforget what you did,\nbut they will never forget the way you made them feel.'\nBelieve me it works, we still have cards and presents at Christmas from patients long discharged.
992280
While the immediately preceding person has the law correctly stated, I am responding to actually answer your question.\n\nA person with schizophrenia, as long as they have not be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be incapacitated, CAN sign (and is thus bound by) a contract for just about anything.\n\nIf, however, that person has had a guardian or other person appointed to them by a court because they have been judged to no longer be able to make decisions regarding their own health or welfare, it is arguable that this individual no longer has the capacity to be bound by contracts that they sign.  The court-appointed individual, however, may be able to sign contracts for the benefit of the schizophrenic person (which could then bind the disabled individual in some manner).\n\nA tutor, however, does not appear (based solely on the limited information you've provided) to have the authority to act in a legal capacity on behalf of the schizophrenic individual.