Introduction
Schizophrenia is a major psychological disorder whose causes and better means of treatment remain unclear despite its long time existence. This paper offers an in-depth review of related literature to ascertain whether persons with the ailment should be compelled to take medications. The paper finally calls for further research on the disorder in order to come up with better therapeutic methods.
A brief overview of schizophrenia
Dora (2002) indicates that Schizophrenia is a psychological disorder whose symptoms appear in form of auditory hallucinations and delusions. Though many studies have pointed out that its causes are poorly understood, Dora (2002) is of the view that it results from the interplay of the immediate environment that a person is exposed to and the biological predisposition.
Basically, schizophrenia is a disorder that is largely implanted on complex inheritance but requires particular environmental conditions to be manifested.
Dora (2002) further indicates that various theories have been employed to try and explain the causes and occurrences of the disorder among people in society.
One such theory is the Becks cognitive theory of emotions. According to the theory, this disorder arises form an individual’s cognitive distortions which culminate to emergence of maladaptive behaviors among them. The theory indicates that for emotional disability to occur in an individual there must be major errors that affect the thought process. The theory therefore offers strong insights that can be used by the medics mostly in the field of clinical psychology.
Treatment and medication
Chan et al (2004) indicate that antipsychotic medication is the first line treatment for patients with schizophrenia. The medication may fail to completely ameliorate cognitive dysfunctions and negative symptoms though effective in reducing the positive effects of the disorder. Even so, patients with schizophrenia may be unwilling to take their medication for various reasons. Many physicians and caretakers have resorted to various means including forceful administration of drugs to control the disorder.
Forceful injection of medication to patients with schizophrenia is a common practice carried out by a number of people. This has been lauded by caregivers as an effective means of administering drugs to patients who are unable or unwilling to take their medication. Chan et al (2004) argue that the use of force in that case is necessary since it is the only option. The argument hinges on the notion that it is critical to consider both the safety of the patient who do not want to take drugs and the public good.
Dora (2002) appears to disagree with Chan et al (2004) view on the use of force to administer drugs by arguing that there are alternative methods that can be employed to treat the patients. One common treatment method is cognitive therapy.
This type of therapeutic treatment helps victims suffering from schizophrenia to identify with the problem and change their dysfunctional thinking and emotional responses. Family therapy and psycho-education further help the affected individuals to deal with the symptoms and fit more effectively in the extended community. Additionally, social skills can be taught to patients so that they can manage themselves well in a bid to coexist with others.
Alternative treatment methods such as use of special diets and glycine supplements can have positive impacts.
To sum up, current effectiveness of schizophrenia treatment is a major issue of concern lacks the direct capacity to address the problem of whether to forcefully administer drugs to schizophrenia patients or not. Hence, it becomes hard to use medication with certainty although it leaves the future generations at great risk of the disorder.
References
Chan, R. et al. (2004). Problem-solving ability in chronic schizophrenia. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 254(4), 236-241.
Dora, W. K. (2002). Trial rights and psychotropic drugs: The case against administering involuntary medications to a defendant during trial. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55(1), 165-218.