Essay, Research PaperAutonomy Vs. Paternalism In Mental Health TreatmentThe assignment for this Ethics category was to reexamine Mr. Jacob & # 8217 ; s intervention,as described by the New York State Commission on Quality of Care for theMentally disabled ( 1994 ) . The category was further asked to notice on the majorissues for each of the three positions. The bureaus, household and reappraisalboard were to be included. This pupil will get down with a 4th position ;that of Mr.

Gordon.In the Matter of Jacob Gordon ( 1994 ) , is the narrative of the last eight old agesof a psychiatrically handicapped adult male & # 8217 ; s life. Mr. Gordon appeared to hoverbetween endeavoring for liberty and accepting the support of his household.Unfortunately, it appeared by this history that the households support was nonsynonymous with liberty.

It did non look that Mr. Gordon had of all time desired orsought bureau intercession for himself. Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s association with themental wellness system appeared to be marked by power and control issues.& # 8220 ; Consumers/ex-patients frequently report a feeling of & # 8220 ; invisibleness & # 8221 ; ; they sense thattheir positions and desires do non count ( Carling, 1995, p.79 ) . & # 8221 ;The committee & # 8217 ; s study ( 1995 ) radius of several incidences where Mr.

Gordoneluded to his desire for liberty. Mr. Gordon did non wish to populate in asupervised scene. Mr. Gordon did non wish to go to group twenty-four hours interventionscenes. Mr. Gordon did non wish to utilize medicine in the intervention of hismental wellness upset. Without medicine his behaviour was deemed unacceptableand did non allow him the chance to hold any of these picks.

& # 8220 ; Choice isa right-not a privilege to be afforded by good behaviour ( Penny, 1994, p. 29 ) . & # 8221 ;Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s right of pick was limited even though he lived in his flatindependently. The status of his flat was scrutinized.

His medicinewas closely monitored ; sometimes to the grade that he was directed to go forth hisplace to have medicine that was given to him oppress, in an effort toinsure it & # 8217 ; s consumption. & # 8220 ; Even peoples autonomies in a extremely controlled board andattention place may be barely greater than in a infirmary ward ( Rubenstien, 1994,p.54 ) . & # 8221 ; In Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s instance even within the holiness of his ain place, hisautonomies were barely greater than in a infirmary ward.Other than his liberty the 2nd issue for Mr. Gordon appears to be thedemand for safety and support.

For this, Mr. Gordon turned to his household. Thestudy ( 1994 ) points out that Mr. Gordon requested his female parent be limited in herability to entree personal information. He continued to necessitate her support andaid although this met she continued to be excessively involved in his life.It was his female parent he turned to when he had jobs with a roomie.

It was hisfemale parent who was utilized when Mr. Gordon was less compliant. It was Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; shousehold who assured that he had continued mental wellness guidance and services.It was besides Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s household who appeared to be the focal point of any programsfor Mr. Gordon. & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; outlooks, shortly to be dashed by plans more devotedto serving neurotic households than people with schizophrenic disorder & # 8221 ; ( Rubenstien, 1994,p.55 ) .

Mr. Gordon remained safe and close to his household by releasing hisliberty.Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s safety was the most of import issue for the household.Secondarily to his safety, Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s household wished him to hold thechance to take part in scheduling that would help in his health.

For Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s household, health seemed to compare to a criterion of behaviourthat his female parent personally viewed as normal.The household were non bound to any codification of moralss or compelled to understandtheir prejudices or biass in their boy & # 8217 ; s instance. Surely, to state that thehousehold operated on the premiss of paternalism is an understatement. Ethically,the Gordon & # 8217 ; s believed that they were the most justified to talk in the bestinvolvements of their boy. The energy that the Gordon & # 8217 ; s set into recommending forwhat they believed, was in their boy & # 8217 ; s best involvement, is a testimony to thedeepness of the feelings they had for their boy.The bureaus primary issues appeared to be their liability andduty. Looking at the committee & # 8217 ; s study and affiliated responses frombureaus ( 1995 ) , it appears as though all of the bureaus and practiciansinvolved were excessively respectful of the engagement of Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s household. Thisover-involvement with Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s female parent was apprehensible when it wasdisclosed that she had complained to province functionaries, whenever bureaus did nonrespond in a manner that she believed to be acceptable. It appears as though Mrs.Gordon understood really good, who to talk with and what to include as pertinentinformation, when she desired action. As the instance proceeded, it became apparentthat Mrs.

Gordon was the most active contriver of her boy & # 8217 ; s services.& # 8220 ; Exaggerated frights and misconceptions associated with a case in high-riskclinical state of affairss seldom conveying out the best quality in practicians. ( Corey,Corey, & A ; Callanan, 1993, p. 117 ) . In actuality, the bureaus involved werefar more unfastened to a case in footings of the deficiency of information that they chooseto unwrap to their client, Mr. Gordon. & # 8220 ; A safeguard of malpractice suit, ispersonal and professional honestness and openness with clients ( Corey, et al. , 1993,p.

131 ) . & # 8221 ;Mr. Gordon ne’er had the right to take any of his intervention. He wasne’er given all of the information refering the choice of picks ofservices, or the possible effects of his picks. Rooney ( 1992 ) points outthe demand for close examination of moralss whenever bureaus interfere with aclient & # 8217 ; s liberty. In an effort to program in Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s best involvement, appeaseMrs. Gordon and go less apt for any hapless results to the intervention program,the bureaus acted paternalisticly. Agencies imposed paternalism in each of theways cited by Rooney ( 1992 ) , by opposing Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s wants of no medicine.The bureaus withheld information about the possible side effects of themedicine he took, and the effects of non taking medicine.

The bureausprovided calculated misinformation by leting Mr. Gordon to believe that theywere excepting his female parent from the planning procedure.Agencies were besides concerned with their ain perceived duties forMr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s program. Unfortunately, each bureau take to give as muchduty as possible to Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s household. As the history of Mr.Gordon & # 8217 ; s intervention unfolded, it appeared apparent that Mrs. Gordon wasresponsible for the development and supervising of Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s attention. Shecoordinated all of the service suppliers, and was the chief contact from onesupplier to the following.

She became the & # 8220 ; enforcer & # 8221 ; for the program, and who wasfinally consulted if Mr. Gordon refused to collaborate. As bureaus became morecommanding of Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s life ( in response to Mrs. Gordon & # 8217 ; s concerns ) , Mr.

Gordon became more non-compliant. & # 8220 ; Ethical dilemmas arise when there arestruggles of duties. For case, when the bureau & # 8217 ; s outlooksstruggle with the concerns or wants of the clients ( Corey et al. , p.135 ) . & # 8221 ; Itappears that toward the terminal of Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s life, none of the bureaus wereinvolved in a squad attack in the bringing of services to this adult male.

Eachbureau was involved in making what they believed they were mandated to make for Mr.Gordon, and relied on Mrs. Gordon to organize and join forces when necessary.The reappraisal board appeared to be most vested in singling out an bureau topronounce as responsible for the jobs in the attention of Mr. Gordon.

Sundram( 1994 ) writes of the altering paradigm from medical theoretical accounts of attention to a client-centered attack to presenting services. Ironically, talking on behalf of thesame committee who wrote the reappraisal of Mr. Gordon, Mr. Sundram focuses on thedemand for alterations within the rank and file of service suppliers to authoriseconsumers. & # 8220 ; We need to concentrate on ways to advance informed, voluntary picks ofpeople with disablements, to supply options that allow them to run into self-identified demands & # 8221 ; ( Sundram, 1994, p.8 ) . Yet in its & # 8217 ; study about Mr. Gordon( 1995 ) , the committee pointed out the bureaus shortages in trying to guaranteeMr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s medicine conformity, and his conformity with tests necessary toremain safely on medicine. Mr. Gordon was reported by the committee to holdvoiced his desire to stop any medicine for his psychiatric upset.The committee recommended that if household engagement becomes an issue thatbureaus trade with the households with the same diligence as other consumer issues.Yet, it appears that Mrs. Gordon had much more power than the consumer.

Mrs.Gordon called the province office of mental wellness when she was dissatisfied.Agencies seem to hold paid much persevering attending to this household. Yet, thecommittee and the Office of Mental Health believed that the household needed evena greater sum of attending within Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s attention program.

Ironically, it seems that one of the households issues in the attention of Mr.Gordon was his conformity with medicine. The household advocated for bureauengagement and paid for private psychiatric intercession. Dr. Surles ( 1994 )the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health writes a twelvemonth prior to thisstudy ( 1995 ) , a compelling piece on the balance and contradictions of pickand safety. He clearly defines himself as a advocate for pick. Dr. Surles( 1994 ) writes & # 8220 ; We can non demand that the public mental wellness system insurereceivers pick and still warrant receivers safety ( p.

21 ) . & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; I merelyprivation to observe that, in the country of intervention, recipient pick means non merely theright to decline intervention, but the right to hold entree to intervention from whichto take ( p. 22 ) & # 8221 ; . In reacting to the concerns of Mrs. Gordon sing herboy & # 8217 ; s entree to services, I am surprised that there is no reference by thecommittee to the message that bureaus functioning Mr. Gordon received from theOffice of Mental Health & # 8217 ; s intercession. I farther inquiry the degree of theOffice of Mental Health & # 8217 ; s probe into the picks of Mr. Gordon inrelationship to his households wish for his safety.

The committee appears to be wishful to put duty on bureaus,for Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s picks. The spirit of this feels every bit unfair as theduty his household feels, and every bit unfair as the deficiency of pick Mr.

Gordonfelt. & # 8220 ; Both professionals and receivers are trapped in a system that givesprofessionals excessively much duty and requires them to be accountable forexcessively much ( Penny, 1994, p.31 ) . & # 8221 ;The major struggle between the issues of pick, safety, liability, andduty is a philosophical struggle between liberty and paternalism. Isfreedom of pick a right that is genuinely unalienable and if so so should thisright of all time be abridged for paternalism? If pick is the right of every citizenthan all parties involved in the instance of Jacob Gordon acted in an unethicaland/or immoral manner. The household looked upon thier kid as less than a human & # 8221 ;To deny an single & # 8217 ; s liberty is to handle that individual as less than homo.

( Atkinson, 1991, p.106 ) & # 8221 ; . The household was opprobrious to this individual that theyclaimed was the object of their concern.

Jacob was disrespectful and opprobrious tohimself, in that he traded his liberty for safety and belonging. & # 8220 ; it is moreof import for world to exercise free will, than it is to be contented ( Atkinson,1991, p.105 ) . & # 8221 ; In this respect, Mr. Gordon could be considered incompetent,since he was non interested in supplying for himself the basic rights of hiscivilization. The bureaus involved with Mr. Gordon were unethical as: counsellors& # 8220 ; must acknowledge the demand for client freedom of pick ( Corey et al. , p.

400 ) & # 8221 ; ,psychologists & # 8220 ; esteem the rights of persons to privateness, confidentiality,self-government, and liberty ( Corey et al. , p. 415 ) & # 8221 ; , and societal workers & # 8221 ;do every attempt to further maximal self-government on the portion of clients( Corey et al. , p. 430 ) & # 8221 ; . The Commission on Quality of attention was the mostunethical, as it is the mission of this bureau to & # 8220 ; require suppliers andappropriate State bureau functionaries to react to the Commission findings, and tosupply periodic studies on the execution of Commission findings, and tosupply periodic studies on the execution of Commission recommendations (Pamphlet, New York State Commission ) . The recommendations that suggested moresupervising non merely spoke to the issues of liberty for Mr.

Gordon, but formany other consumers served by the suppliers involved in this survey and trainedwith this information.If paternalism is a social duty so Mr. Gordon was miserablyunder-served, and all parties involved in his attention were irresponsible, unethicaland apt for non maintaining Mr. Gordon safe.

The true step of safety for Mr.Gordon would hold been long term hospitalization where all of his demands couldhave been met.It is sad to read instance surveies of people fighting with normalizing lifewithin a society that is unsure of the issues involved in life with apsychiatric disablement. My sympathy lies with Mr. Gordon, his household, and thesuppliers involved with services for Mr. Gordon. I am regretful that the field ofpsychological science is so probationary about the types of intervention that assist people inretrieving from mental unwellness.

Mr. Gordon surely ne’er appeared to berelieved from his symptoms to a grade that was comfy during the old agesreported. His ends were aimed at normalising his life, the same ends as everyother participant in this calamity. Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s aims in making that endwere at odds with the other members of his intervention squad.The Gordon household surely deserves acknowledgment for the function they playedin being available and supportive of Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s recovery. Mrs. Gordon seemsthe type of individual that would hold done anything to help her boy in hishealth, anything except hazard injury to him. I empathize with her feeling offright that her boy was non having what he needed.The head-shrinker involved in Mr. Gordon & # 8217 ; s attention seems to be insteadcryptic, as we have small information about this supplier. Frustration isinevitable when covering month on terminal with a patient that shows small advancementin decreasing the symptoms of his unwellness. Regardless of the sum of successtherapy yielded the physician ne’er abandoned his client.

As Mrs. Gordon washighly pro-active in her boy & # 8217 ; s intervention, the physician & # 8217 ; s continuity wasdoubtless great.Last, the service suppliers worked reportedly infinite hours to helpMr. Gordon in going independent. In malice of the maze of regulations andordinances and concerns for behavior, these people gave Mr.

Gordon unconditionedattention. The study reflects the maneuvering bureau staff attempted to help Mr.Gordon in accepting attention that they believed would give him the life style hewanted. I suspect that each of those bureaus, at one clip, gave Mr. Gordon allthey could to guarantee his liberty and his safety. Since these constructs do nonmix, they worked in ineffectual attempt and likely were cognizant of this.Mr.

Gordon & # 8217 ; s instance will go of import in the manner services are delivered,when either the Torahs provide for consumers rights to picks andduties, or bureaus duties to do picks and go responsiblefor the consumers safety.& # 8220 ; Can & # 8217 ; t you give me brains? & # 8221 ; asked the straw man.& # 8220 ; You don & # 8217 ; t necessitate them. You are larning something everyday. A babe has encephalons,but it doesn & # 8217 ; t cognize much. Experience is the lone thing that brings cognition,and the longer you are on earth the more you are certain to acquire & # 8221 ;The Wizard of Oz Frank L. BaumMentionsAtkinson, J.

( 1991 ) . Autonomy and mental wellness. In P. Barker & A ; S. Baldwin( Eds. ) , Ethical issues in mental wellness ( pp.

103-125 ) . New York: Chapman & A ; Hall. Carling,P.J. ( 1995 ) .

Tax return to Community Building Support Systems for People with PsychiatricDisabilities. New York: The Guilford Press. New York State Commission onQuality of Care for the Mentally Disabled, ( 1995 ) .

A Report. In The Matter of Jacob Gordon: Confronting the Challenge of SupportingPersons With Serious Mental Illness in the Community. New York:Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. New York StateCommission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled.

A Pamphlet. What is The Commission? New York: Commission on Quality ofCare for the Mentally Disabled. Corey, G. , Corey, M.

S. , Callanan, P. ( 1993 ) .Issues and Ethical motives in the Helping Professions. ( 4th ed.

) . California:Brook/Cole Publishing Co. Penny, D.J. ( 1994 ) .Choice, common sense, and duty: the systems duties toreceivers.

In C. J Sundram ( Ed. ) , Choice & A ; Responsibility ( pp. 29-32 ) . NewYork: NYS Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. Rooney,R.

( 1992 ) .The ethical foundation for work with nonvoluntary clients. Schemes forWork with Involuntary Clients. ( pp. 53-74 ) . New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Sundram, C.J. ( 1994 ) .A model of believing about pick and duty. In C. J.Sundram ( Ed. ) , Choice & A ; Responsibility ( pp.

3-16 ) . New York: NYS Commissionon Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. Surles, R.C. ( 1994 ) .Free pick, informed pick, and unsafe picks.

In C.J. Sundram( Ed. ) , Choice & A ; Responsibility ( pp. 17-24 ) .

New York: NYS Commission onQuality of Care for the Mentally Disabled.

Written by

I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out