The new proposals offered an easier route to 'sectioning' people, (that is forcibly detaining people,) who were considered to be a danger to themselves, or others because of the nature of their illnesses. The government accepted the main objections based on basic human rights and have decided to amend the existing Mental Health Act.
How do we determine what constitutes a dangerous personality disorder?
The problem I have with such an issue is that Narcissistic Personality Disorders are not so easily defined or recognised. My earlier posting raised the question of the gang of drug pushers who tortured, raped and killed a young girl for the sake of some alleged 'crime within a crime' and seemed to have no conscience about committing such an offence. Yet before they committed this atrocity they lived in the community and were not considered to be mentally ill.
The accepted diagnosis of a personality disorder appears to be (based on my own experience in the field) an individual who already has a diagnosed mental illness, such as Bi-Polar Disorder, Schizophrenia, or even a serious eating disorder, but has not responded to normal treatments. Nobody seems to question the treatments, only the response to treatments.
Personality disorders, to my mind, do not have a place in the mental health field simply because they are not related to the original diagnosis. Just because someone has a serious and enduring mental illness that does not respond to some wacky pharmaceutical coshing does not mean they have no conscience! An individual suffering a deep psychosis - which, more often than not, is based in depression and fear (paranoia) - is no more likely to be a threat than any one of us with a conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment