No sex policy

actually the focus SHOULD be on trying to keep the enviroment as normal as possable. If that means there partner comes in everyday and sometimes they have sex then thats up to them, if that means they strike up a sexual relationship with another patient then again thats up to them. The last thing you want to do is to remove every choice from there hands if that isnt what THEY desire (and some patients may want to be told what to watch, when to eat ect ect). The is a really good series of radio programes which were done on mental health in queensland from the asylem days till now which i am trying to find. Basically these patients were striped of there dignity as well as there autonomy. For instance when it was "shower time" they were all (and this includes female patients) forced to strip naked in there rooms and walk naked through the corrodors to the communal showers. Now how many mentally HEALTHY people would accept that and these people had no choice. They were subjected to medical trials without concent, one women was even transfered to the womens hospital to give birth and wasnt even alowed to touch her child and was degraded as a terrible person who would never be able to do anything for a child. She wasnt even alowed to hold it, it was a case of off to the hopsital, pop it out and back to the psyc ward for you.

How is any of that conducive to patients mental recovery?
 
now you are giving extreme examples and unrelated to the op. most people would view these institutions as a place to get treatment and not to get la** and then even the patients themselves, especially females, wouldnt want to deal with horny patients looking to score. just a feeling i have.
 
evidence or assumption?

some people may well view them as home because thats where they live after all
 
Mod Hat - Cleaning up

Mod Hat — Cleaning up

Yes, I just deleted ten posts. Those of you who expected that, by all means carry on. Everyone else, see #2331561/47 for more information. In the meantime, let us focus on the issue at hand.

Thank you.
 
Asguard said:
how is it not relivent?
Click to expand...

It doesn't effect the question of the morality of whether or not to inform the woman.

Your forgetting that this is a mental health facillity and there for its quite likly the patient was detained against there will.
Click to expand...

Actually there are plenty of in-patient facillities which don't accept criminals or people under court order. Further I would expect that a facility which did accept criminals or people under court order would have segrigated wards and would severly curtail the freedoms of such people - especially with the opposite sex.

there problems are mental not bacterial (for the most part).
Click to expand...

Hep B is a viral infection and it is highly contagious and can lead to liver danage and even death. The right answer is quarentine from the general population and monitoring and supportive care until he throws it off. A few people become carriers and may need antiviral meds. I.e. he has more than just mental problems to worry about. I wouldn't be surprised if he was transfered to a regular hospital.

its not as simple as "Well strap him down, pump him full of antibotics
Click to expand...

So you know nothing about hepititus?

Any limits you put on there autonomy
Click to expand...

Death severly limits one's recovery. Recklessly endangering others or himself is probably part of the reason he is in-patient to begin with. Allowing him to recklessly endanger her makes you and the facility liable.

Its very simple, just because he is whack, that doesn't mean it is ok to spread dangerous diseases to other patients.

Basically how is this statment correct?

"A zero sex policy isn't necessarily immoral in and of itself any more than other patient requirments might be"
Click to expand...

any move you make to limit autonomy
Click to expand...

Oh, grow up. Cutting his balls off is immoral. Secretly doping his food to reduce sex drive is immoral. Having a rule regulating sex on premises is not immoral. He can still have all the sex he wants off premises.

Preventing him from spreading a dangerous disease and possibly killing some one is not immoral and fuck him if he can't take it.
 
Asguard said:
because i have innumberable texts which say that sex
Click to expand...

Allowing sex is a hugh liability issue for the institution.

Ibogain works wonders for most any addiction, but don't expect to see it offered either.

If you are dying they might let you take MDMA eventually, but don't hold your breath.
 
Asguard said:
How is any of that conducive to patients mental recovery?
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing their recovery. We are discussing if it is moral to let them hurt another patient and if the institution can morally restrict certain behaviors, like sex.
 
wow, whats with the consecutive postings?

I suggest you look up the word "detained" in a medical dictionary, has apsolutly NOTHING to do with criminals or people under court order. A person detained under the mental health Act is concidered to be a risk to themself or others, mostly this means they are suicidle and have been detained for treatment. The cause maybe psycological or organic but is mostly (at least what we are talking about) psycological (ie suicidly depressed people)

I never ment Hep was a bacteria, rather you can treat a bacterial infection by pumping pt full of drugs with or without consent and they WILL (for the most part which is why i picked bacteria) get better. Mental illness doesnt work that way, it requires a much more gental aproch and further limiting pt freedom is not conjucive to good pt recovery
 
and why exactly should a person who is detained because of suicidel idiations be in single sex wards?
 
Some people need to be protected from themselves. If I was in a mental care unit, I can bet I'm not making good choices because I'm not mentally able to. Having a no-sex rule makes it fair across the board. One rule for everyone and not a rule for some and another rule for others.
 
once again orleander i will ask the question.

How is it theropudic?
i mean i could change the settings slightly and say what if this was aged care? (and sadly there are alot of WAY to young people in aged care because the number of care facilities for people with aquired brain injuries are to low). These people are still in there because of mental problems and there LONG term.

Do they have the right to have there human rights removed too?

Some people are in wards for years, hell some are in there for ever simply because they will never be able to recover to the point where a "normal life" is possable. What right do the staff have to limit there freedoms behond what is strictly nessary for there saftey?

I came across a similar senario pitched at the aged care sector, ie you have a zero sex policy and you see one of your residents sneaking into another persons room after "lights out". Well what right do you have to enforce a "lights out" for starters but also what right do you have to decide what they can and cant do?

In that case there justification is "oh what if they fall out of bed", well thats just to bad. They get treated acording to the guidelines they have set (or the courts) and thats it.

I have herd of cases in aged care of patients being put into bean bags and left there all day (without our levels of flexability bean bags are as effective as chainning someone to the bed). There are lots of things you can do to make the staff's lives easier. However that doesnt make it RIGHT or just. The staff chose to work there, the patients dont chose to be sick wether the illness is an organic infection, old age, an aquired brain injury or a mental illness
 
John99 said:
attraction when it is mutual is one thing, but sexual intimacy tends to complicate things and if people are emotionally fragile state then it is best to abstain until they work out their personal issues.
Click to expand...
Maybe they have to wait years before they resolve their emotional and mental issues....:) . Probably the lack of sex will add to their misery .
 
mike47 said:
Maybe they have to wait years before they resolve their emotional and mental issues....:) . Probably the lack of sex will add to their misery .
Click to expand...

maybe. maybe you will start using your brain instead of winning points on a web forum...maybe.
 
Asguard said:
wow, whats with the consecutive postings?
Click to expand...

I have limited opportunities to access the forum and I'm on it when most other people aren't so a bunch of posts will build up and then I work through the back log resulting in consecutive posts.

Its only been like this since I got here.

I suggest you look up the word "detained" in a medical dictionary, has apsolutly NOTHING to do with criminals or people under court order.
Click to expand...

Why? It has nothing to do with the original question.

mental health Act
Click to expand...

Did you think I lived where you live?

Mental illness doesnt work that way
Click to expand...

The question concerns hep b, not mental illness.

it requires a much more gental aproch and further limiting pt freedom is not conjucive to good pt recovery
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Endangering others is not permissible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top