Recovery in Mental Health Issues | Report

Running head: RECOVERY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE
RECOVERY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

RECOVERY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE1
Introduction
Mental health issues in individuals are caused due to a range of factors associated at the
individual, social, emotional, psychological, familial and the environmental level. For this
reason, health professionals specializing in mental health services are recommended to deliver
care which is comprehensive, holistic, patient centered and adopts a strength-based approach
(Cleary et al. 2017). However, traditional treatment approaches and models associated with the
evaluation of mental health disorders have been found to emphasize extensively on pathological
causes while overlooking additional associated factors mentioned above. Further, individuals
with mental health disorders encounter a range of stigmatized and stereotyped perceptions by the
society, which in turn, paves the way for mental health diseases being viewed as ‘incurable’,
‘disempowering’ and ‘abnormal’ (Crowe and Deane 2018). Considering the prevalence of such
issues, the recovery model is considered as a holistic, strengths-based and client centered
approach to mental health treatment in comparison to traditional treatment models (Slade, Oades
and Jarden 2017). The following paper will thus discuss on the role of the principles of recovery
in ensuring effective mental health practice and treatment across health professionals and clients.
Discussion
History of Mental Health Treatment
Australia has been evidenced to be one of the leading nations worldwide, to possess an
effective set of infrastructure, policies and expertise, pertaining to reform and management of
mental health issues in individuals. However, it has been evidenced that such was not the
situation in the past (Pincus et al. 2016). Initially, after the arrival of the first fleet of immigrants
to the continent in the year 1788, individuals with mental health issues were perceived as

RECOVERY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE2
‘insane’ and undeserving of humane treatment. For this reason, such individuals were placed in
locked lodgings, along with criminals and convicts. It is only after the establishment of the first
facility delivering psychiatric and mental health services in the year 1811, were individuals with
mental health issues given a separate institution (Fletcher et al. 2019). However, reports
continued to prevail concerning the abuse of patients residing in such facilities. Such issues
marked the deinstitutionalization of mental health services towards the 1990s which paved the
way for the development of a range of national mental healthcare plans from 1992 (Sutton et al.
2017). With this respect, the ‘National framework for recovery-oriented mental health services’
was developed by the Department of Health and Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council
(AHMAC) in the year 2014 for directing mental health professionals on the need to adopt a
recovery oriented approach during the deliverance of mental health services (Department of
Health 2014).
While the development of such national frameworks demonstrate nation-wide awareness
concerning the need to adopt comprehensive mental health care plans and practice interventions,
Australia’ history of societal perceptions concerning mental health institutions demonstrate how
mental illnesses have been stigmatized and discriminated since historical times (Rickwood and
Thomas 2017).
Bio-Medical Model
Adoption of a recovery approach has been a relatively recent change in current mental
health practice in Australia. Initially, the traditional bio-medical was used to dictate health
professionals on the approach to be adopted during mental health patient management (Beckett
2017). According to the bio-medical model, illness is caused as a range of pathological factors at
the physiological level. For this reason, treatment, as per the recovery approach, must be target

RECOVERY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE3
the biological and physiological causes of diseases and thus, comprises of the usage of
medications. The effectiveness of the bio-medical model of illness lies in the need to ensure that
the pharmacological interventions so used were evidence-based and clinically proven to be
effective (Giacaman 2018).
However, despite its historical effectiveness, the recovery approach has also been
criticized for a number of reasons. Firstly, mental illnesses are caused due to a range of social
factors in addition to biological causes, thus necessitating the need to adopt a holistic mental
health care plan. However such factors are completely overlooked by the biomedical model
(Arias et al. 2016). Further, the individualistic approach adopted by the bio-medical approach is
also disadvantageous because it demonstrates the perception that individuals lack the ability to
overcome mental illness and must rely on pharmacological intervention. Additionally, the
excessive emphasis placed on treatment instead of preventive strategies, results in the
overlooking of the importance of client centeredness, empowerment and empathy in mental
illness recovery by the biomedical model (Bayetti, Jadhav and Jain 2016).
Individual and Societal Challenges
The history of mental health service development and the importance placed on
traditional biomedical models are indicative of the range of personal and societal challenges
individuals with lived experiences encounter frequently. One of the key societal challenges
encountered by such individuals is social stigma. Such individuals have been historically
regarded as ‘insane’ with an illness which is possibly incurable and feared (Michaels et al.
2017). Such perceptions have been historically in alignment with the principles of the biomedical
model which perceive mental illness as a cause of biological abnormalities. For this reason, a key
challenge faced by individuals with mental health illness is the societal perception that their