In my opinion, the dilemma does complicate the issues presented in this section to a great extent. It is because, as stated in the River’s hearings, before administering any antipsychotic treatment, the medical professional must prove that the patient is incompetent to participate in decision making as pertains to his treatment and that treatment by antipsychotic medication is necessary and that it will cause no harm to the individual as well as society. He further must prove that there is no less intrusive medication option other than the antipsychotic medication and that the need for treatment by the patient is greater than refusal by the patient to receive treatment.
It may result in a dilemma especially in cases where one has got a mental illness but still can make a decision about his treatment. Should this person refuse to consent to the necessary treatment, the medical practitioners as obliged by the law, may let the patient go, much as they know that he will be harmful to himself and to the community. Besides, according to (Tomasulo, 2011), deinstitutionalization does not necessarily mean that the mentally ill patients who have received treatment are harmless to society. Medical professionals should not just be concerned with offering medication and letting the patients go out into the community. The medical experts must ensure that they are given a supportive environment to guarantee their full recovery.
According to (Tomasulo, 2011), the cost of institutionalization of mentally ill patients is greater, yet less effective as compared to letting the patients stay with other members of the society, with adequate social support from them. The dilemma brought about by these assertions as well as the opinions of the medical experts, thus requires that great caution be taken when handling the mentally ill.
References
Tomasulo, D. (2011). Abandoned Minds: Social Justice, Civil Rights and Mental Health – Part 1. Psych Central
