LEARN MORE...

P691 Mental Health Policy Brief

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Nursing

School

Moore Career College

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

xbune844

Pages

Showing Page:

1/4

Running head: MENTAL HEALTH POLICY BRIEF 1

Mental Health Policy Brief

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Showing Page:

2/4

MENTAL HEALTH POLICY BRIEF 2

Mental illnesses do not discriminate. The most challenging aspect is that the disorders

assert themselves in paranoia and delusional thoughts, which often result in uncontrollable

behavior like violence or suicidal thoughts. When patients present their mental health issues to

psychiatrists about their feelings and intentions, these professionals have to use their discretion

and act in good faith to help them. In most cases, this requires the therapist to disclose the

patient’s confidential information to relevant authorities so that immediate action can be taken in

preventing the patient from causing self-harm (Sare, 2017). However, the problem most

psychiatrists face is facing lawsuits filed by clients of family members to the patient regarding

the disclosure. Regarding California’s mental health bill, # CS/CS/HB 361, the provisions

provide immunity to health professionals that retrieve clinical records of clients who claim to

cause self-harm or harm others.

As proposed by the Health Policy Committee in the policy that took effect on January 07,

2019, California’s mental health bill addresses the ethical concerns regarding information

disclosure. In the law, health professionals are mandated to inform relevant authorities when

forced to communicate risks related to the patient to prevent them from being penalized for

breaching confidentiality laws. Another incidence of disclosure limits is when the family

members request confidentiality waver when following up on the treatment of their kin. The

clients can be children, family members, or spouses, among others. According to Motloba

(2019), this provision aligns with the code of ethics among health professionals who have the

mandate of following significant nonmaleficence principles and beneficence when providing

care to patients. As much as confidentiality should be enhanced between the client and the health

professional, this regulation offers confidentiality limits. Generally, Sare (2017) elaborates that

the health professional’s actions typically are to enhance the overall wellbeing of the patient by

preventing him/her from going ahead in causing self-harm. As such, any punitive measures

towards the clinicians should be waived to help them serve clients without fear.

Moreover, there are several suicide cases among spouses, members in the community,

and students in schools. Apart from the suicide cases, mass shooting incidences are also rampant,

and in most cases, the perpetrators appear mentally disturbed. By taking the example of students

with mental disorders, the law stipulates that schools are mandated to have counselors where part

of their roles is identifying risk factors among such individuals. Hence, the affected

administrators, such as the educational institutions, have the mandate of supporting the clinicians

to perform their tasks, including conducting mental assessments, which may reveal suicidal or

violent ideations in students. Based on their evaluations, they get to recognize some of the

unconscious and conscious thoughts of suicide or violence that the individuals in focus present.

Through the disclosure to the management or parents, the counselor gets to reduce possible cases

of suicide or mass shootings. Statistics provided by Paolini (2015) reveal that students ranging

from 10 to 19 years commit violent deeds towards other students, and this involves using guns.

Among the offenders, 10% includes students with mental disorders who fail to adhere to their

medication. Further, Paolini (2015) reveals that 78% of these students usually have suicidal

ideations before committing heinous deeds. Therefore, this policy is of great significance for it

protects the health professionals from civil liability.

With the mental health policy brief, clinicians would manage to overcome ethical

dilemmas when making a judgment on information disclosure. In the process, this regulation

would help them to enhance the safety of clients and the people around them. Nevertheless, the

Showing Page:

3/4

End of Preview - Want to read all 4 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: MENTAL HEALTH POLICY BRIEF Mental Health Policy Brief Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date 1 MENTAL HEALTH POLICY BRIEF Mental illnesses do not discriminate. The most challenging aspect is that the disorders assert themselves in paranoia and delusional thoughts, which often result in uncontrollable behavior like violence or suicidal thoughts. When patients present their mental health issues to psychiatrists about their feelings and intentions, these professionals have to use their discretion and act in good faith to help them. In most cases, this requires the therapist to disclose the patient’s confidential information to relevant authorities so that immediate action can be taken in preventing the patient from causing self-harm (Sare, 2017). However, the problem most psychiatrists face is facing lawsuits filed by clients of family members to the patient regarding the disclosure. Regarding California’s mental health bill, # CS/CS/HB 361, the provisions provide immunity to health professionals that retrieve clinical records of clients who claim to cause self-harm or harm others. As proposed by the Health Policy Committee in the policy that took effect ...
Purchase document to see full attachment