What I found interesting this week was how the deinstitutionalization movement significantly changed the landscape of mental healthcare, moving away from a large institution-dominated approach and toward one that prioritizes community-based support. This paper's examination of the historical background and the unforeseen ramifications of this big change is among its most interesting features. The movement started out intending to better the treatment that people with mental illness received, and it also aimed to eliminate the harsh environments that were prevalent in many institutions from the early 20th century. The paper emphasizes how popular culture's depiction of these facilities often linked to terror and neglect was a major factor in influencing public opinion and changing laws. The legislative initiatives aimed to provide sufficient community resources, most notably through the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. However, many people were left without the required support networks as a result of the later institution closures, which raised the rates of homelessness and incarceration. Law enforcement frequently serves as the initial point of contact in modern mental health crises, demonstrating the movement's ongoing effects. Emphasizing how important it is for police forces to have specialized training to adequately address the intricacies of mental health issues. One step toward resolving these issues is the integration of mental health treatments with general health services, but the study correctly highlights the continuous battle for sufficient money and resources. It asks for a well-rounded strategy that guarantees people with mental illnesses have access to the resources they need for their well-being while also standing out for their rights. The legacy of the deinstitutionalization movement is multifaceted, reflecting advancements and the pressing need for ongoing reform in mental health services. The initiative revealed structural shortcomings in community mental health resources while also granting people greater autonomy and social integration. In addition to burdening families, this gap puts those with serious mental illnesses in danger of being criminalized rather than receiving the proper care.
This week we learned about mandatory vaccines. First we started off with Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), A Massachusetts legislation requiring smallpox vaccinations for all students was being challenged in this case. Cambridge, Massachusetts resident Henning Jacobson objected to his child receiving a vaccination because of his personal views and history of negative vaccination reactions. After receiving a $5 fine (about $150 in today's currency) for breaking the law, he filed a constitutional rights complaint. The main question was whether Jacobson's right to individual liberty under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated by the Massachusetts vaccine requirement. Jacobson claimed that because the law restricted his bodily autonomy and personal freedom, it was unconstitutional. In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court maintained the Massachusetts statute. The Court decided that vaccination laws might be enforced by the state for the protection
Comments
Post a Comment